GROUP QUESTION: Should sci.med.vision become a moderated forum??

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by The Central Scrutinizer, Feb 25, 2006.

  1. Hi, all.

    First off, I'm not a vision professional. I came into this group
    looking for advice on contact lenses a few months ago, and appreciate
    the assistance I was given.

    Everyone here must be aware of the problem with Otis posting to this
    group. It seems clear that he is not wanted, and yet it seems clear
    that he won't leave. His disruption is clearly harmful to the forum.

    So: If he will not stop conducting himself as he has been, is it not
    fair to suggest that the only viable option is to FORCE him to stop?
    Killfilters only go so far, and the level of chaff in this group is
    truly absurd. I should know, because I'm responsible for some of it. Oh
    well.

    Hypothetical: _IF_ the group were to be converted into a moderated
    forum, and IF the moderator's only initial goal were to 'cull out' all
    of Otis' posts, what would that do to the atmosphere in the group?

    Is this worth considering?

    I am not volunteering to take on this task myself - and nor _should_ I,
    as I have as much reason for being here as an optician has for going to
    a Microsoft Windows XP support forum. But, I do think that the group
    would be well served by at least considering this.

    I imagine that a moderator role would require a fair time investment,
    *under most circumstances*. But if all that is required is to deny him
    posting rights until he changes his tune, is that such a huge task?

    And clearly, Otis' conduct violates some provisions which could easily
    be part of a group charter.

    Thoughts? Anyone else see a way to deal with this?

    BD
     
    The Central Scrutinizer, Feb 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. The Central Scrutinizer

    RT Guest

    Usenet groups are by definition unmoderated. If you want a moderated
    group go to yahoo groups, a private forum or the like.
     
    RT, Feb 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. The Central Scrutinizer

    Charles Guest


    Usenet groups can certainly be moderated. I've seen only a few that
    survive in that mode, however. I have seen some though, and I agree
    that this group could use some help. Maybe if people would just stop
    responding to Otis when he starts going off topic...
    --
     
    Charles, Feb 25, 2006
    #3
  4. The Central Scrutinizer

    Quick Guest

    If the only objective is to bar Otis then there is automated
    moderation software that would do that by itself. Creating
    a new usenet group is not a simple, small, or quick task.

    Otis would go away by himself if everyone simply ignored
    him. The concern is for new visitors looking for advice who
    might actually listen to him or be confused by him. Hence
    the warnings.

    I think we may have recently (inadvertently) stumbled on
    the ideal solution to all of this. The imposter postings!
    By interspersing imposter posts with Otis posts will very
    effectively:

    1) provide a red flag for the unaware.
    2) discredit any of Otis' mis/mal information.
    3) provide comic relief for all

    It also appears to really irritate Otis and could possibly
    result in his leaving.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Feb 25, 2006
    #4
  5. Otis would go away by himself if everyone simply ignored
    I agree completely - on all points. ;-)
     
    The Central Scrutinizer, Feb 25, 2006
    #5
  6. You might as well wiwsh for the rain to fall upwards.

    --
    Regards,
    Nicolaas.

    Pricelessware 2006 CD now available.
    E-Mail for details: raptor740.gmail@com (swap "." and "@")


    .... Why are there five syllables in the word "monosyllabic"?
     
    Nicolaas Hawkins, Feb 25, 2006
    #6
  7. The Central Scrutinizer

    Charles Guest

    Not in this group. They won't stop replying. They love to feed the
    trolls and kooks here. They love Otis and the other kook, Ace, who is
    right out of the movie dumb and dumber. The main problem in this
    newsgroup is not the trolls and kooks. It is that the otherwise sane
    posters fill up the newsgroup with replies to kooks like Otis.
     
    Charles, Feb 25, 2006
    #7
  8. The Central Scrutinizer

    Dick Adams Guest

    Well said!

    It might be added that the otherwise sane ones, presumably
    professionals, as they so identify, seem incapable of mastering
    simple conventions of newsgroup posting like focusing their
    comments by including news IDs and selected items from
    commented posts. And discovering the "killfile" options in
    their newsreaders. Some can't even find the caps (shift) key.

    Fer chrissake!
     
    Dick Adams, Feb 25, 2006
    #8
  9. The Central Scrutinizer

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dicky,

    I would also point out that some are so craven that
    they hijacked my name and made false statements -- thus
    destroying the credibility and honer of an
    honest conversation about the proven behavior
    of the natural eye. And I have good reason
    to expect that one of these "posters" is
    is the same person who wishes to "control"
    the analylsis that is part of science.

    If so, then why not elect The "Central Scutinizer" (Bob I believe)
    to "control" sci.med.vision. Because he does not
    "like" honest second opinions, and the developement
    of new concepts in science.

    I support a person's right to an informed, second-opinion
    for PREVENTION. That NEVER means that
    the person has to "accept" or use it. It just
    means informed-choice.

    And that is why CENTRAL demands that we
    all do.

    So much for freedom of expression and
    freedom of academic speech.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 25, 2006
    #9
  10. The Central Scrutinizer

    Dick Adams Guest

    Here you attempt to hijack another thread.

    Herewith I acknowledge that you have established a
    web page which expresses your views and presents a
    good deal of interesting information:

    http://www.geocities.com/otisbrown17268/

    Thence PLONK! I add you to my "blocked senders
    list". But when others requote your repetitious and self-
    serving stuff I'll still see it, so I'll need to "plonk" a few
    more. Most likely Neil Brooks to start.
     
    Dick Adams, Feb 25, 2006
    #10
  11. The Central Scrutinizer

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Quick,

    Subject: Yes, brilliant of you Quick.

    If you do not "like" a concept honestly expressed, then
    just post under his name to "destroy" him. Hitler, Gobles
    and Goring were famous for that "stunt" also.

    Yes, it works and you are good to discover it.
    It is called a "ad hommonum" attack, or character
    assination.

    As I recall, Hitler hated all Jews, who he thought
    were stupid and "wrong". So he insisted that
    there was a "conspiracy", and that they were
    sub-human. (unter-mensch). So he
    kicked all Jews out of Germany because
    they were so stupid, including of course
    Albert Einstein -- who departed and
    left everything behind.

    Yes, Quick, your clever methods work, and
    I would suggest that you, "Central" and
    Neil Brooks here with be appointed "monitors"
    or "censors" of this sci.med.vision group,
    and ANY IDEA, or concept that you happen
    to not "like" can easly be expunged from
    these scientific discussions.

    Good luck!

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 25, 2006
    #11
  12. The Central Scrutinizer

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dicky,

    You got the correct idea.

    Simply to not respond to my posts!

    In fact, I RECOMMEND THAT THE PEOPLE I TALK TO
    HAVE A RECENT MEDICAL EXAM -- AND ALL
    MEDICAL ISSUES BE CLEARLY IDENTIFIED.

    Only AFTER that has been done, but BEFORE the
    preson starts wearing that minus do I SUGGEST
    that he read papers on the natural eye's proven behavior
    and THINK about the preventive alternative.

    What the hell! The person has absolutly nothing to lose,
    (all medical problems elliminated) and the potential
    to clear his vision from 20/70 to 20/40 or better as
    Dr. Stirling Colgate did. And it is indeed free as
    the falling rain.

    But these "chumps" (chimps) do not like the
    idea that you have an informed, competent
    SECOND-OPINION.

    But they want total "control" lest you come
    to a "different" conclusion about preventing
    a negative refractive state for the natural eye.

    Jeeze!

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 25, 2006
    #12
  13. The Central Scrutinizer

    Dick Adams Guest

    Well, looks like we got another Otis thread.

    Not much hope for this newsgroup!

    Otis reigns!

    Go ahead, idiots ...

    Educate Otis.
     
    Dick Adams, Feb 25, 2006
    #13
  14. The Central Scrutinizer

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dicky,

    Subject: The "scenario" for prevention.

    1. Mother enters shop.

    2. Six year-old child has refractive status of zero or slightly
    negative (say 20/25 to 20/30 vision.)

    3. "Doctor" talks to mother, and has the child "read" some
    items. Child puts nose on book and reads at 4 inches (-10 diotpers)

    4. "Doctor" winces and says that when you put young primates
    in this type of enviromnt there natural eyes "move negative",
    and that continued "reading" like this could well produce
    exactly the same result. Or, that about two years
    later (if the child is not stopped from doing this) she
    can expect that the eye's natural refractive status will
    be at -2 diopter or 20/70 eye-cahrt.

    5. "Doctor" suggests reviewing the second-opinion,
    and offeres to help WITH EITHER METHOD. Since
    true-prevention is "new" he asks the mother sign
    and "agreement" that she understands these issues.

    6. "Doctor" his paid for his discussion. Mother
    reviews these issues, and decides that the
    majority-opinion is in the child's best interests.

    7. "Doctor" gets paid either way. Mother is
    happy. Child gets stair-case myopia -- but that
    is not the Doctor's responsibility -- now is it?

    Long live science and an honest "fighting chance" or
    second-opinion.

    Best,

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 25, 2006
    #14
  15. The Central Scrutinizer

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Dicky,

    Subject: What goes on in the "Central's" mind.


    Central> If Raiders are organisms, why haven't we seen any Raider poo
    floating
    around? I'd think they'd use it as a weapon - fling big gobs of crap in

    a dogfight, and if it lands on the windscreen of a Viper pilot, it
    might distract them enough for the Raider to get a sucker-shot...



    Otis> This reminds me of that "White House Official" who
    wanted to prohibit NASA Scientists from publishing
    statements about global warming with out HIS APPROVAL.

    Otis> Turned out that the "White Hous Official" did not even
    have a college education.

    Otis> And you want "Central" to control postings
    on sci.med.vision?

    Incredible!

    Otis
     
    otisbrown, Feb 25, 2006
    #15
  16. If Raiders are organisms, why haven't we seen any Raider poo

    Oo, goody - Mister Brown starts a smear campaign against lil' ol me.
    Gawrsh, I'm honored. I'm actually blushing! How can I help?
     
    The Central Scrutinizer, Feb 25, 2006
    #16
  17. The Central Scrutinizer

    Dan Abel Guest


    No. Most feel that it is impossible to do. At best, you can create
    another group which is moderated. Of course, those who don't want to be
    moderated won't use it.

    Good thing. Failure isn't fun.


    We are doing our best.

    Otis is the guy on the soapbox in Central Park screaming, "the end of
    the world is upon us!", and he has as much right to say that as anyone.
     
    Dan Abel, Feb 25, 2006
    #17
  18. The Central Scrutinizer

    otisbrown Guest

    Dear Central,

    Apparently you have a lot of free time on your hands,
    and nothing to do with it.

    The majority opnion ODs are great guys. They have
    NO CHOICE AT ALL but to apply a minus lens
    to you.

    But you are clearly demonstrating your intellectualy
    ability m'boy.

    Does anyone need any more proof of this intellectual giant?
    (Or maybe that should be Gnat.) I often wondered
    why an OD would not offere even a DISCUSSION about
    true-preveion. And here is the reason. My appologies
    to all the ODs on sci.med.vision. I could NEVER deal
    with a person like "Central". You can have "him" because
    I can't deal with this type of person. And you have
    no choice. That is how I separate scientfic concern
    for objective facts concerning the proven
    behavior of the natural eye (intellectual)
    from dealing with the lowest common demoninator
    of the public.


    Central> Oo, goody - Mister Brown starts a smear campaign against lil'
    ol me.
    Gawrsh, I'm honored. I'm actually blushing! How can I help?
     
    otisbrown, Feb 25, 2006
    #18
  19. The Central Scrutinizer

    Quick Guest

    To say nothing of sentence structure, broken English,
    and the ability to maintain a coherent subject through
    an entire sentence.

    I thought he was talking about grits.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Feb 25, 2006
    #19
  20. The Central Scrutinizer

    Quick Guest

    Why don't you start a new group? Something like
    alt.primate.natural.eye.can't.see
    Then you, ace and others can have meaningful
    discussions and ensure people's rights to listen
    to you.

    -Quick
     
    Quick, Feb 25, 2006
    #20
    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.