Eye will if you will ;-)

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Neil Brooks, Oct 5, 2005.

  1. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Docs (et al)-

    I'm profoundly grateful for your participation on this ng. Each of
    you has his or her reasons for being here, and none of them is
    selfish. I've learned from each of you and been encouraged by the
    relief you have provided, through education, to others.

    There. That's out of the way.

    Other than BestOtisEngineer, I'd like to keep all of the participants
    that we have, maybe even get back a few that we've lost, and make this
    a friendly place for new posters. Between the furor, there are still
    some really valuable and informative exchanges here.

    Can we make a deal? I've killfiled the old troll and -- other than
    posting my canned warning -- am more than happy to cease responding to
    him in any fashion.

    Can we _all_ try this ... let's say for thirty days to start with, and
    see how we all feel (and whether Otis--starved for attention--has
    atrophied and fallen off (think rubber band ligation on a hemorrhoid))
    at that time? We'd be relying on the "Otis Brown Warning" to admonish
    the newbies that stop by. It should be enough.

    By my clock, that would be November 4th ... as a first milestone.

    Who's game?

    Neil Brooks, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  2. Neil Brooks

    Quick Guest

    If you are going to have an "end date", trial period, etc.
    it may as well be tomorrow. It kind of defeats the purpose
    and even provides a sort of challenge doesn't it? And there
    is no need for an evaluation unless you have another
    alternative. It will only be effective once Otis has convinced
    himself no one is going to crack and that it's a permanent
    condition. I would expect an initial onslaught/increase in
    "baiting" for quite some time.

    Quick, Oct 5, 2005
    1. Advertisements

  3. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Nah. Baby steps.

    AA calls it "One Day at a Time."

    We're weaning people (myself included) off a fairly entrenched habit.
    "Forever" is a far loftier goal than a month.
    Neil Brooks, Oct 5, 2005
  4. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil,

    You two-faced S.O.B.

    After posting this type of "statement" you then (before or after)
    send a note to my Nephew.


    The other readers should take note of Neils duplicity.


    otisbrown, Oct 6, 2005
  5. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Let's be perfectly clear: I think you hurt people and I'm going to see
    what I can do to put a stop to it ... but not on this forum.

    I'll avail myself of any and all appropriate and legal means at my
    disposal. I'm getting the sense that others will, too.

    [forgive me, folks]
    Neil Brooks, Oct 6, 2005
  6. Neil Brooks

    Neil Brooks Guest

    Previous record: something like 37 minutes.

    Incremental progress :)
    Neil Brooks, Oct 6, 2005
  7. Neil Brooks

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Neil,

    I have friends in optometry and ophthalmology. I maintain that they
    have an "impossible" situation, since the geneneral public only
    "wants" a minus-lens quick-fix, and are hostile to ANY preventive

    I describe a population of natural eye's as sophisticated
    and test them on an "input" verus "output" basis. This is a "classice"
    scientific experiment.

    Accepting that the natural eye is a competent system, I then
    test, and confirm that:

    1. When you place a population of natural primate eyes, the
    average refractive STATE will move in the dirction and approximate
    magnitude of the NEARER environment. Please note that I use
    NEUTRAL words to describe the result of this classic experiment.

    (I Neil can present SCIENTIFIC data that PROVES that the
    natural eye IS NOT DYNAMIC in this sense -- he should do so.)

    2. In the same line-of-thought, then you would expect that
    the refractive state of the natural primate eye will "track" the
    accommodation system (retina-lens system).

    When you place a "test" -3 diopter lens, you can expect
    one of two results.

    a. The natural eye is "frozen" so there will be no change of
    refractive state in the direction of the applied minus lens, or

    b. The natural eye is sophisticated, and its refractive
    state will "follow" the -3 diopter lens.

    These tests are NOT designed to prove ANYTHING in the
    sense of "defect", error, or anything like that.

    There are designed to prove that the natural eye is
    a sophisticated system -- as we all should expect
    of this physiological noral syste.


    otisbrown, Oct 6, 2005
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.