Increase in Myopia may be due to increasing testosterone...
James Howard
It is my hypothesis that the "secular trend," the increase in size and
earlier puberty occurring in children, is caused by an increase in the
percentage of individuals of higher testosterone. More specifically, I
think this is driven by an increase in the percentage of women of higher
testosterone giving birth within the population. Exposure to increased
maternal testosterone may be the cause of the parallel increase in numerous
phenomena such as diabetes, obesity, breast cancer, etc., including myopia.
Black maternal testosterone is known to be higher than white and this fact
explains the higher incidence of myopia and increase in myopia among blacks.
Testosterone has been connected with myopia.
James Michael Howard
Fayetteville, Arkansas, U.S.A.
Mike Tyner
"James Howard" <jmho...@anthropogeny.com> wrote
> Black maternal testosterone is known to be higher than white and this fact
> explains the higher incidence of myopia and increase in myopia among
> blacks.
I always heard the incidence of myopia was lower in black people than white.
What's changed?
-MT
James Howard
"Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:weSdnWSPH8LiiLXW...@giganews.com...
"Results Using the 1971-1972 method, the estimated prevalence of myopia in
persons aged 12 to 54 years was significantly higher in 1999-2004 than in
1971-1972 (41.6% vs 25.0%, respectively; P < .001). Prevalence estimates
were higher in 1999-2004 than in 1971-1972 for black individuals (33.5% vs
13.0%, respectively; P < .001) and white individuals (43.0% vs 26.3%,
respectively; P < .001) and for all levels of myopia severity (>-2.0
diopters [D]: 17.5% vs 13.4%, respectively [P < .001]; -2.0 to >-7.9 D:
22.4% vs 11.4%, respectively [P < .001]; -7.9 D: 1.6% vs 0.2%, respectively
[P < .001]).
Neil Brooks
> "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
>
> news:weSdnWSPH8LiiLXW...@giganews.com...
>
>
> >> Black maternal testosterone is known to be higher than white and this
> >> fact
> >> explains the higher incidence of myopia and increase in myopia among
> >> blacks.
>
> > I always heard the incidence of myopia was lower in black people than
> > white.
>
> > What's changed?
>
> > -MT
>
> From: Arch Ophthalmol. 2009;127(12):1632-1639
>
> "Results Using the 1971-1972 method, the estimated prevalence of myopia in
> persons aged 12 to 54 years was significantly higher in 1999-2004 than in
> 1971-1972 (41.6% vs 25.0%, respectively; P < .001). Prevalence estimates
> were higher in 1999-2004 than in 1971-1972 for black individuals (33.5% vs
> 13.0%, respectively; P < .001) and white individuals (43.0% vs 26.3%,
> respectively; P < .001) and for all levels of myopia severity (>-2.0
> diopters [D]: 17.5% vs 13.4%, respectively [P < .001]; -2.0 to >-7.9 D:
> 22.4% vs 11.4%, respectively [P < .001]; -7.9 D: 1.6% vs 0.2%, respectively
> [P < .001]).
Sounds like Dr. Tyner was correct, then: myopia is less common in
blacks than in whites, though the gap may be narrowing
Otis? What do you make of this? Think black people have discovered
the secret of plus lens therapy??
Mike Tyner
nearsighted.
-MT
"Neil Brooks" <neil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c56367c6-99a1-482f...@h10g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Otis
Dear Mike,
Why ask me? You have declared that you will NEVER LISTEN TO THE
SECOND-OPINION.
Why ask now?
The people who have their own trial-lens kit, and verify their
refractive STATE themselves, simply clear their vision when necessary,
and keep their refractive STATE close to zero.
Thus avoiding "stair-case" mypopia -- permanently.
It is never "easy" -- but it has been done, and continues to be done
by the people who have the motivation for it.
Prevention best,
Otis
=====
Otis? What do you make of this? Think black people have discovered
the secret of plus lens therapy??
On Dec 16, 10:14 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I'm also having a hard time believing 43% of African American adults are
> nearsighted.
>
> -MT
>
> "Neil Brooks" <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> the secret of plus lens therapy??- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Tyner
"Otis" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> The people who have their own trial-lens kit, and verify their
> refractive STATE themselves, simply clear their vision when necessary,
> and keep their refractive STATE close to zero.
I can see the headlines now... MYOPIA CURED BY WISHFUL THINKING!
-MT
Neil Brooks
> Why ask me? You have declared that you will NEVER LISTEN TO THE
> SECOND-OPINION.
>
> Why ask now?
He didn't. You're an idiot.
> The people who have their own trial-lens kit, and verify their
> refractive STATE themselves, simply clear their vision when necessary,
> and keep their refractive STATE close to zero.
>
> Thus avoiding "stair-case" mypopia -- permanently.
And the people who spray Shark Away in their front yards .... have
never had a shark infestation in their front yards.
> It is never "easy" -- but it has been done, and continues to be done
> by the people who have the motivation for it.
The issue isn't difficulty. It's efficacy. Got any evidence of that?
Your nearsighted niece, Joy Benson .... is probably something we
should discuss.
Otis
As you might recall, I never said "CURE".
I said avoid entry into a negative refractive STATE.
Thus, prevention must be under control of the Engineer/Scientist
(i.e., a person like Dr. Stirling Colgate) who "wakes up" to the fact
that the eye is dynamic, and, that your are destructive to the goal of
effective (threshold) PREVENTION.
Engineering/Science best,
On Dec 17, 9:16 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I didn't ask you. That was Neil.
>
> "Otis" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Otis
As you might recall, I never said "CURE".
I said avoid entry into a negative refractive STATE.
Thus, prevention must be under control of the Engineer/Scientist
(i.e., a person like Dr. Stirling Colgate) who "wakes up" to the fact
that the eye is dynamic, and, that your are destructive to the goal of
effective (threshold) PREVENTION.
Engineering/Science best,
On Dec 17, 9:16 am, "Mike Tyner" <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> I didn't ask you. That was Neil.
>
> "Otis" <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote
Neil Brooks
> Dear Mike,
>
> As you might recall, I never said "CURE".
>
> I said avoid entry into a negative refractive STATE.
>
> Thus, prevention must be under control of the Engineer/Scientist
> (i.e., a person like Dr. Stirling Colgate) who "wakes up" to the fact
> that the eye is dynamic, and, that your are destructive to the goal of
> effective (threshold) PREVENTION.
I must have missed the part of this that was supposed to look
like .... evidence.
Mike Tyner
"Otis" <otis...@embarqmail.com> wrote
> As you might recall, I never said "CURE".
No, you said "simply clear their vision when necessary."
That's cure by wishful thinking.
> Thus, prevention must be under control of the Engineer/Scientist
> (i.e., a person like Dr. Stirling Colgate) who "wakes up" to the fact
Stirling Colgate had pseudomyopia, and you are still a FRAUD.
-MT
Prof Wonmug
Do you guys have any idea how you appear to others?
Mike Tyner
"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote
> Do you guys have any idea how you appear to others?
-MT
Prof Wonmug
<mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote
>
>> Do you guys have any idea how you appear to others?
>
>None whatsoever. :)
Seriously. I don't know if Otis is a fraud or not. You spent some time
asnwering my questions and you seem to know what you are talking
about. But I gotta tell ya. When I was reading some of the older posts
before I posted my questions, I almost came to the conclusion that
this group is nothing but a bunch of adolescents and wing nuts baiting
each other. It's really juvenile.
If Otis really is a fraud, don't you think that engaging him is just
feeding the beast and making it worse -- not to mention making it a
lot harder to tell who the nuts are. Someone once said, "Never argue
with a fool."
Mike Tyner
-MT
"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote in message
news:ut9mi5pnvef1o85ih...@4ax.com...
Neil Brooks
Two schools of thought. The second is: Otis HAS HURT people --
inducing double vision in more than a handful of kids as desperate
parents seek cures for the "horrible affliction" of myopia.
Even if people view the bickering as adolescent, I believe it's better
that his proclamations DO NOT go un-challenged. It gives a rational
reader cause for concern before they TRULY DO risk their child's
eyesight.
Asking a guy for evidence ... on a science-based newsgroup ... is a
good thing.
Not producing any ... well ... that should speak for itself.
Simon Dean
The sad fact of the matter, people come here after seeing someone in the
medical profession, say the eye hospital or optician, then come here
seeking clarification, further advice, help, reassurance.
Im sure nobody really minds the "second opinion", but take away people
like MT, NB et al, and we have a load of fevered oft repeated rantings
from a guy who really should just learn how to use the web instead of
posting crap on newsgroups.
And of course, to the new comer, it's well worth mentioning that Otis
does not represent medicine or science, or even a cure. As he himself
states, he is merely an engineer interested in preventing myopia.
Yet some people could well end up listening to that cretin.
Im sure people wouldn't really mind if he just shut up and posted once a
day.
Prof Wonmug
<neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 18, 12:02�am, Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
>> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:37:42 -0600, "Mike Tyner"
>>
>> <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> >"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote
>>
>> >> Do you guys have any idea how you appear to others?
>>
>> >None whatsoever. :)
>>
>> Seriously. I don't know if Otis is a fraud or not. You spent some time
>> asnwering my questions and you seem to know what you are talking
>> about. But I gotta tell ya. When I was reading some of the older posts
>> before I posted my questions, I almost came to the conclusion that
>> this group is nothing but a bunch of adolescents and wing nuts baiting
>> each other. It's really juvenile.
>>
>> If Otis really is a fraud, don't you think that engaging him is just
>> feeding the beast and making it worse -- not to mention making it a
>> lot harder to tell who the nuts are. Someone once said, "Never argue
>> with a fool."
>
>Two schools of thought. The second is: Otis HAS HURT people --
>inducing double vision in more than a handful of kids as desperate
>parents seek cures for the "horrible affliction" of myopia.
Anyone who follows the advice of an unknown person on usenet without
asking a few questions gets what they deserve (Darwin principle).
If someone replies to a nut, you can reply to that person, setting
them straight. This will dramatically decrease the goofy traffic and
deprive the nut of sustenance.
>Even if people view the bickering as adolescent, I believe it's better
>that his proclamations DO NOT go un-challenged. It gives a rational
>reader cause for concern before they TRULY DO risk their child's
>eyesight.
>
>Asking a guy for evidence ... on a science-based newsgroup ... is a
>good thing.
Only if the person is rational. If, after the second or third request,
no "evidence" is forthcoming, it is unlikely that further requests
will be productive. It's not about the data.
>Not producing any ... well ... that should speak for itself.
There is a huge difference between a terse statement rejecting or
countering a false statement and dozens of petty back and forth posts
calling each other FRAUD.
If this guy is a nut, then he feeds on the controversy. You cannot be
in a mud fight without getting a little muddy.
Prof Wonmug
<neil...@yahoo.com> wrote:
PS: Anyone who has used usenet for any length of time quickly gets the
sense of how it works. Posts that get no response are generally
insubstantial or wacky. When I need an asnwer to something, I
generally skim through the past few weeks of posts. If someone makes a
claim and no one responds, I tend to ignore it. I think most people
intuitively understand that there is something wrong with the guy no
one is talking to.
It's true at cocktail parties and it's true on usenet. Starvation is
the most effective trollicide.
Robert Redelmeier
> Seriously. I don't know if Otis is a fraud or not. You spent
> some time asnwering my questions and you seem to know what
> you are talking about.
To the extent it is important to you, you owe it to yourself
to make the effort to decide. Considering any source "valid"
without evaluation is merely reverse ad-hominem.
> But I gotta tell ya. When I was reading some of the older posts
> before I posted my questions, I almost came to the conclusion
> that this group is nothing but a bunch of adolescents and
> wing nuts baiting each other. It's really juvenile.
Your issue is hardly unique to this newsgroup, and has
implications far beyond USENET. When does turning the
other cheek become overturning moneychangers tables?
In more secular terms (this being _s_mv), spreading false
ideas and information is a form of predatory behaviour (fraud).
Multiple coping mechanisms are valid.
Personally, I choose to seldom combat such misinformation. But
I do this partly from sloth and rather admire the persistance
of those who do not shirk. Why question someone else' choice
to fight? In most cases, the discouragement eventually works.
Please do not confuse intolerence of fraud with a desire to
silence legitimate scientific debate. But they are easy to tell
apart -- fraud just repeats, while debate progresses through
question & response. Just look at who evades questions.
-- Robert in Houston
Neil Brooks
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:31:21 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
>
>
>
> <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Dec 18, 12:02 am, Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
> >> On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 17:37:42 -0600, "Mike Tyner"
>
> >> <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >> >"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote
>
> >> >> Do you guys have any idea how you appear to others?
>
> >> >None whatsoever. :)
>
> >> Seriously. I don't know if Otis is a fraud or not. You spent some time
> >> asnwering my questions and you seem to know what you are talking
> >> about. But I gotta tell ya. When I was reading some of the older posts
> >> before I posted my questions, I almost came to the conclusion that
> >> this group is nothing but a bunch of adolescents and wing nuts baiting
> >> each other. It's really juvenile.
>
> >> If Otis really is a fraud, don't you think that engaging him is just
> >> feeding the beast and making it worse -- not to mention making it a
> >> lot harder to tell who the nuts are. Someone once said, "Never argue
> >> with a fool."
>
> >Two schools of thought. The second is: Otis HAS HURT people --
> >inducing double vision in more than a handful of kids as desperate
> >parents seek cures for the "horrible affliction" of myopia.
>
> Anyone who follows the advice of an unknown person on usenet without
> asking a few questions gets what they deserve (Darwin principle).
I don't subscribe. I may be able to beat you senseless, and then take
your car, your wallet, and your wristwatch.
Darwin principle.
> Only if the person is rational. If, after the second or third request,
> no "evidence" is forthcoming, it is unlikely that further requests
> will be productive. It's not about the data.
>
> >Not producing any ... well ... that should speak for itself.
>
> There is a huge difference between a terse statement rejecting or
> countering a false statement and dozens of petty back and forth posts
> calling each other FRAUD.
>
> If this guy is a nut, then he feeds on the controversy. You cannot be
> in a mud fight without getting a little muddy.
I can wash.
Neil Brooks
You and I flatly differ. I'm looking to do something very easy and
very minimal to help those who do NOT have your smarts. Without such
help, I've seen them hurt their kids, despite the best intentions.
If you don't care about the "least among us," then ... we differ.
> It's true at cocktail parties and it's true on usenet. Starvation is
> the most effective trollicide.
Or not.
Neil Brooks
Beautifully put, Robert.
Robert Redelmeier
> Starvation is the most effective trollicide.
True, but only for true trolls -- those who post without
viewpoint and only desiring reaction. They need the
recognition responses bring.
However unpleasant, Otis is not a troll. He fervently believes
what he posts. The world-wide appearance of his posts (especially
unopposed) in an "offical" ng is sufficient gratification.
I have seen a few such individuals scattered over dozens
of newsgroups. Persistant, multi-level negative responses
appears to be the least ineffective disciplinary measure.
But it is _always_ slow. Ignore them and the ng dies because
they will take it over and continue posting long after everyone
else has gone away. This dominance is their goal.
-- Robert
Simon Dean
fraud just repeats, while debate progresses through
> question & response. Just look at who evades questions.
>
Never a truer word said.
Prof Wonmug
I said "on usenet".
>Darwin principle.
>
>> Only if the person is rational. If, after the second or third request,
>> no "evidence" is forthcoming, it is unlikely that further requests
>> will be productive. It's not about the data.
>>
>> >Not producing any ... well ... that should speak for itself.
>>
>> There is a huge difference between a terse statement rejecting or
>> countering a false statement and dozens of petty back and forth posts
>> calling each other FRAUD.
>>
>> If this guy is a nut, then he feeds on the controversy. You cannot be
>> in a mud fight without getting a little muddy.
>
>I can wash.
No, you can't. These childish tirades persist in the ng forever.
Prof Wonmug
<red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
>Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote in part:
>> It's true at cocktail parties and it's true on usenet.
>> Starvation is the most effective trollicide.
>
>
>True, but only for true trolls -- those who post without
>viewpoint and only desiring reaction. They need the
>recognition responses bring.
>
>However unpleasant, Otis is not a troll. He fervently believes
>what he posts. The world-wide appearance of his posts (especially
>unopposed) in an "offical" ng is sufficient gratification.
Well, we'll never know if he would continue unapposed because that has
never been tried, and, apparently, isn't about to.
>I have seen a few such individuals scattered over dozens
>of newsgroups. Persistant, multi-level negative responses
>appears to be the least ineffective disciplinary measure.
I have never seen anything like that work at all. It certainly isn't
working here.
>But it is _always_ slow.
In this ng, I'd say it's stopped. Zero effectiveness.
>Ignore them and the ng dies because
>they will take it over and continue posting long after everyone
>else has gone away.
Very unlikely.
Neil Brooks
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 09:16:17 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
> >I can wash.
>
> No, you can't. These childish tirades persist in the ng forever.
And .... ?
Prof Wonmug
My point is that the style of combat has degenerated into mindless and
largely content-free name-calling on both sides. When I was reading
over old posts before posting my question, it was very difficult to
tell if any of the combatants were sane. Personally, I think engaging
an irrational person is a form of insanity, but if you must counter
his statements, at least do so professionally. There are dozens, if
not hundreds, of threads consisting of little more than
"You're a FRAUD"
"You're a FRAUD"
"You're a FRAUD"
"You're a FRAUD"
"You're a FRAUD"
"You're a FRAUD"
ad nauseum.
Neil Brooks
> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 17:20:23 +0000 (UTC), Robert Redelmeier
>
> <red...@ev1.net.invalid> wrote:
> >Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote in part:
> >> It's true at cocktail parties and it's true on usenet.
> >> Starvation is the most effective trollicide.
>
> >True, but only for true trolls -- those who post without
> >viewpoint and only desiring reaction. They need the
> >recognition responses bring.
>
> >However unpleasant, Otis is not a troll. He fervently believes
> >what he posts. The world-wide appearance of his posts (especially
> >unopposed) in an "offical" ng is sufficient gratification.
>
> Well, we'll never know if he would continue unapposed because that has
> never been tried, and, apparently, isn't about to.
Wrong ... but ... if it sustains you to believe that, then nobody here
will try to stop you.
Neil Brooks
You will ALWAYS have the option of moving on.
And you will.
And WHEN YOU DO ... the rest of us will STILL be stuck with Otis, and
the deleterious effects of his delusional nature.
And you ... will have moved on.
Skip ahead.
Robert Redelmeier
> that has never been tried, and, apparently, isn't about to.
Oh dear, don't you have any better argument? This "we will
never know because it wasn't tried" is a trite rhetorical truism.
Of course we can never be certain about what wasn't done -- that
is akin to proving a negative. But we _do_ have probabilities.
Beyond that, everyone must do what they think is right.
You apparently are deeply concerned that some posters appear
juvenile and want them to stop. Fine, you can and should point
this out. But excessive persistence (especially without fresh
data) is profoundly disrespectful and becomes disruptive in its
own right. They do have a right to make up their own minds,
and are not required to agree with you.
Since appearences evidently matter to you, you ought to also
consider how _you_ appear.
> I have never seen anything like that work at all. It
> certainly isn't working here.
I have, and I would also say that it _is_ working here.
Otis has changed over the _years_, and he is getting
closer to flame-out.
>>But it is _always_ slow.
>
> In this ng, I'd say it's stopped. Zero effectiveness.
Your time horizon appears very short.
>>Ignore them and the ng dies because they will take it over
>>and continue posting long after everyone else has gone away.
> Very unlikely.
From your limited experience. Mine is otherwise. USENET is
littered with dead ngs. Some died after take-overs, some
died after battle-fatigue -- the zealot(s) were turned away,
but the rest felt unsupported and too tired to continue.
-- Robert
Simon Dean
How do you counter potentially false and potentially malicious
information? You don't seem to have a go at Otis who neither answers a
question directly, and keeps posting his information ad nauseum, time
and time again.
One must therefore wonder what the purpose of your post is?
But if you have A, B, C, if you take away B and C, you are left with
only A. Is that acceptable?
Prof Wonmug
My point is about the nature of the counters. Brooks and Tyner, in
particular engage in a type of exchange that is difficult to
distinguish from a childish game of neener-neener. I got helpful
information from Tyner, so I presume that he is a knowledgeable
person, but his style when reponding to Otis is more like a rant.
The purpose of my post is only to say that as a newcomer, I was put
off by BOTH of them. My first impression was very bad. I'm glad I hung
in there a bit, but the signal-to-noise ratio is low even for usenet.
This is intended as constructive. It doesn't appear that it is so
received. So be it. I'll leave it at that. ymmv
Dan Abel
Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Dec 2009 21:19:16 +0000, Simon Dean
> <sjd...@home.cubeone.co.uk> wrote:
> >How do you counter potentially false and potentially malicious
> >information? You don't seem to have a go at Otis who neither answers a
> >question directly, and keeps posting his information ad nauseum, time
> >and time again.
> This is intended as constructive. It doesn't appear that it is so
> received. So be it. I'll leave it at that. ymmv
I think your post was constructive. I, too, was getting tired of the
FRAUD responses. I used to respond to Otis, but it was just useless.
Otis has invented his own psuedo-scientific language, and it is
impossible to argue with him, because he can't explain his language, and
he just keeps repeating it. It seems reasonable, but there is no
substance behind it. Otis keeps quoting these doctors, but very few are
current medical doctors.
--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net
Mike Tyner
"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote
> My point is about the nature of the counters. Brooks and Tyner, in
> particular engage in a type of exchange that is difficult to
> distinguish from a childish game of neener-neener. I got helpful
> information from Tyner, so I presume that he is a knowledgeable
> person, but his style when reponding to Otis is more like a rant.
Of course you're right, and I regret you happened in at a particularly ugly
point.
If I've descended into raw emotion, I apologise. Most of my messages contain
at least one valid intellectual point, even if the tune is neener-neener.
Otis is fueled by the belief that his own myopia is iatrogenic.
I am fueled by disappointment that myopia is NOT responsive to management by
optical means.
If we leave Otis unopposed, he compulsively replies to every conversation
and relates it to his idee fixe. _Every_ topic becomes a dissertation on how
doctors cause myopia by prescribing glasses.
> This is intended as constructive. It doesn't appear that it is so
> received. So be it. I'll leave it at that. ymmv
Thing is, our mileage doesn't vary. Anyone who hangs around here long enough
will learn that Otis and his unnamed friend make a toilet out of s.m.v.
Otis has about 10 years of history here. You can look back and see if
everybody rants at him, after a while he'll go away for a few months.
-MT
Prof Wonmug
<mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>"Prof Wonmug" <won...@e.mcc> wrote
>
>> My point is about the nature of the counters. Brooks and Tyner, in
>> particular engage in a type of exchange that is difficult to
>> distinguish from a childish game of neener-neener. I got helpful
>> information from Tyner, so I presume that he is a knowledgeable
>> person, but his style when reponding to Otis is more like a rant.
>
>Of course you're right, and I regret you happened in at a particularly ugly
>point.
I don't think it was that unusual. Before posting, I reviewed the
messages for the past 12-18 months. I found it pretty bad throughout.
>If I've descended into raw emotion, I apologise. Most of my messages contain
>at least one valid intellectual point, even if the tune is neener-neener.
>
>Otis is fueled by the belief that his own myopia is iatrogenic.
Maybe. In my experience, attributing motives to others is sketchy. We
can observe their behavior, but inferring why they do what they do...
Heck, I'm not sure we are that good at knowing why WE do what we do.
>I am fueled by disappointment that myopia is NOT responsive to management by
>optical means.
>
>If we leave Otis unopposed, he compulsively replies to every conversation
>and relates it to his idee fixe. _Every_ topic becomes a dissertation on how
>doctors cause myopia by prescribing glasses.
I'm not saying he should be unopposed. I'm saying that if you respond
in kind, it's difficult to tell who is crazy. Mr. Brooks has been
engaged in recently a particularly pointless and repetitious tirade
against Otis. I think if you showed these exchanges to 100 neutral
people, it would be a toss up who they would pick as the more
disturbed. ;-)
I still think that completely ignoring him is by far the best
response. Psychologists have known for decades that ignoring bad
behavior in a child is usually more effective that punishment, both
short and long term. It doesn't always work, but it is the best thing
to try first. If you must respond, then shorter is better and civility
is worth its weight in gold.
Never fight insanity with insanity. The insane are much better at it
and they rarely tire.
>> This is intended as constructive. It doesn't appear that it is so
>> received. So be it. I'll leave it at that. ymmv
>
>Thing is, our mileage doesn't vary. Anyone who hangs around here long enough
>will learn that Otis and his unnamed friend make a toilet out of s.m.v.
>Otis has about 10 years of history here. You can look back and see if
>everybody rants at him, after a while he'll go away for a few months.
I believe that the response rants actally prolong the stays and
encourage the returns.
Neil Brooks
Spend MORE time looking at the history of s.m.v.
You'll find that -- at least with Otis -- you're starkly incorrect.
Prof Wonmug
Yeah, I'll get right on that -- right after I finish looking at my
archive of Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, and Glenn Beck shows.
Neil Brooks
I'll replace your sarcasm, then, with information.
In his LENGTHY history on s.m.v., there has been NO difference between
Otis opposed and Otis unopposed, in terms of his frequency of posting.
NOTHING he does has any rational basis.
The only difference is that Otis unopposed HAS hurt numerous people --
mainly children -- by his uninformed opinion.
Desperate parents, horribly concerned that their child may be
suffering some terrible affliction, trust Otis ... to their peril.
And ... much as innocent young children TRUST the kindly old pedophile
in the Cadillac, offering rides, cookies, or candy.
Both are dangers to society.
ps: I at least support your politics ;-)
Prof Wonmug
Has there ever been a significant period when no one (NO ONE) engaged
him?
>NOTHING he does has any rational basis.
Then simple say that, periodically, and leave off the ad hominems.
Your recent ad nauseum rants about his troubled childhood are not
worthy of rational debate and completely counter-productive.
>The only difference is that Otis unopposed HAS hurt numerous people --
>mainly children -- by his uninformed opinion.
>
>Desperate parents, horribly concerned that their child may be
>suffering some terrible affliction, trust Otis ... to their peril.
Do you have actual data that anyone has been hurt by something Otis
has said on usenet?
In any case, my main point is that your *style* of opposition lowers
the debate, it does not raise it. How can that be useful?
>And ... much as innocent young children TRUST the kindly old pedophile
>in the Cadillac, offering rides, cookies, or candy.
>
>Both are dangers to society.
>
>ps: I at least support your politics ;-)
It's not politics. The Lunatic Left is just as bad, they are just less
visible at the moment.
Dan Abel
Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:17:06 -0600, "Mike Tyner"
> <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >If I've descended into raw emotion, I apologise. Most of my messages contain
> >at least one valid intellectual point, even if the tune is neener-neener.
> >
> >Otis is fueled by the belief that his own myopia is iatrogenic.
>
> Maybe. In my experience, attributing motives to others is sketchy. We
> can observe their behavior, but inferring why they do what they do...
> Heck, I'm not sure we are that good at knowing why WE do what we do.
In other words, you didn't know what that word meant, either. I looked
it up. I suggest that you do, also. It's in my dictionary, and doesn't
have to do with vision.
> >I am fueled by disappointment that myopia is NOT responsive to management by
> >optical means.
> >
> >If we leave Otis unopposed, he compulsively replies to every conversation
> >and relates it to his idee fixe. _Every_ topic becomes a dissertation on how
> >doctors cause myopia by prescribing glasses.
> I still think that completely ignoring him is by far the best
> response. Psychologists have known for decades that ignoring bad
> behavior in a child is usually more effective that punishment, both
> short and long term. It doesn't always work, but it is the best thing
> to try first. If you must respond, then shorter is better and civility
> is worth its weight in gold.
You don't understand. Otis is a lost cause. Those who argue with Otis
aren't trying to convince him. At best he can be convinced to leave, at
least temporarily. The problem is the parents. They are given two
choices, listen to the doctors who say that there is no cure for their
kid's myopia, that they'll just have to wear glasses; or listen to Otis,
who says to ignore the doctors, and that a little money and a little
time will prevent myopia in their kids.
Neil Brooks
> On Sun, 3 Jan 2010 08:15:30 -0800 (PST), Neil Brooks
>
>
>
Go look at his ... probably 20,000 Internet posts on the various
websites. The answer is a resounding "yes!"
> >NOTHING he does has any rational basis.
>
> Then simple say that, periodically, and leave off the ad hominems.
> Your recent ad nauseum rants about his troubled childhood are not
> worthy of rational debate and completely counter-productive.
Ouch.
> >The only difference is that Otis unopposed HAS hurt numerous people --
> >mainly children -- by his uninformed opinion.
>
> >Desperate parents, horribly concerned that their child may be
> >suffering some terrible affliction, trust Otis ... to their peril.
>
> Do you have actual data that anyone has been hurt by something Otis
> has said on usenet?
Yes, and it was all presented to the Pennsylvania authorities for
investigation.
> In any case, my main point is that your *style* of opposition lowers
> the debate, it does not raise it. How can that be useful?
Left unchallenged, the unsuspecting HAVE assumed that Otis is
credible ... much LIKE the old guy in the Cadillac. I will shout,
scream, whistle, and gesticulate wildly if it keeps that kid from
walking into his peril.
You don't have to. Your choice.
> >And ... much as innocent young children TRUST the kindly old pedophile
> >in the Cadillac, offering rides, cookies, or candy.
>
> >Both are dangers to society.
I don't truly think that ANYTHING will change Otis Brown's behavior,
but that doesn't mean I'll let his bullshit go unchallenged.
Whose behavior do YOU think you'll change?
Prof Wonmug
Well, then simply say that.
>> In any case, my main point is that your *style* of opposition lowers
>> the debate, it does not raise it. How can that be useful?
>
>Left unchallenged, the unsuspecting HAVE assumed that Otis is
>credible ... much LIKE the old guy in the Cadillac. I will shout,
>scream, whistle, and gesticulate wildly if it keeps that kid from
>walking into his peril.
My point is that another type of response is likely to have better
results. Parenting books do not recommend throwing the food back as a
generally effective parenting technique.
>You don't have to. Your choice.
>
>> >And ... much as innocent young children TRUST the kindly old pedophile
>> >in the Cadillac, offering rides, cookies, or candy.
>>
>> >Both are dangers to society.
>
>I don't truly think that ANYTHING will change Otis Brown's behavior,
>but that doesn't mean I'll let his bullshit go unchallenged.
I think you need to let go of trying to change his behavior and look
at whether your is achieving your goals. I contend that it is not and
may even be making it worse.
>Whose behavior do YOU think you'll change?
Good point. I thought I might change yours on the assumption that you
were the sane one. I havge long ago given up trying to change the
insane.
Good luck.
Prof Wonmug
>In article <2al0k556eem5ng9ml...@4ax.com>,
> Prof Wonmug <won...@e.mcc> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 27 Dec 2009 08:17:06 -0600, "Mike Tyner"
>> <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> >If I've descended into raw emotion, I apologise. Most of my messages contain
>> >at least one valid intellectual point, even if the tune is neener-neener.
>> >
>> >Otis is fueled by the belief that his own myopia is iatrogenic.
>>
>> Maybe. In my experience, attributing motives to others is sketchy. We
>> can observe their behavior, but inferring why they do what they do...
>> Heck, I'm not sure we are that good at knowing why WE do what we do.
>
>In other words, you didn't know what that word meant, either. I looked
>it up. I suggest that you do, also. It's in my dictionary, and doesn't
>have to do with vision.
(sigh) Assuming you are referring to iatrogenic, it means "caused by
doctors". But that was not my point. I was referring to Mike
attribution (maybe you should look that up, too) that Otis behavior is
fueled by his belief. It's might be too subtle of a point.
>> >I am fueled by disappointment that myopia is NOT responsive to management by
>> >optical means.
>> >
>> >If we leave Otis unopposed, he compulsively replies to every conversation
>> >and relates it to his idee fixe. _Every_ topic becomes a dissertation on how
>> >doctors cause myopia by prescribing glasses.
>
>> I still think that completely ignoring him is by far the best
>> response. Psychologists have known for decades that ignoring bad
>> behavior in a child is usually more effective that punishment, both
>> short and long term. It doesn't always work, but it is the best thing
>> to try first. If you must respond, then shorter is better and civility
>> is worth its weight in gold.
>
>You don't understand. Otis is a lost cause. Those who argue with Otis
>aren't trying to convince him.
Good, because it is highly unlikely to work.
>At best he can be convinced to leave, at
>least temporarily.
Also unlikely, certainly not by showering him with attention.
>The problem is the parents. They are given two
>choices, listen to the doctors who say that there is no cure for their
>kid's myopia, that they'll just have to wear glasses; or listen to Otis,
>who says to ignore the doctors, and that a little money and a little
>time will prevent myopia in their kids.
Well, I have more faith than that is most parents, but ranting at Otis
is unlikely to help any rational parents. They will ignore them both.
Neil Brooks
> Well, I have more faith than that is most parents, but ranting at Otis
> is unlikely to help any rational parents. They will ignore them both.
It is my considered opinion that -- your self-serving definition of
'rational' aside -- ALL parents deserve protection from Uncle Otie.
Most WILL see him for the borderline insane, demented old man that he
is.
Most.
What percentage of your life have you spent with diplopia (double
vision)?
I've been there. It sucks.
It's one of the *known* risks of following Uncle Otie's Unfounded
Magical Elixir.
I talked to nearly a dozen rational, intelligent, thoughtful sets of
parents whose children became diplopic as a result of listening to the
kindly old man with the Cadillac and the bag of cookies.
Doctors have a fiduciary obligation to their patients. We deem the
doctors as responsible for knowing better. That's because patients
and parents can't reasonably be expected to know better in cases like
these.
That leaves decent, thoughtful, rational people ... vulnerable.
If you think they get what they deserve, then ... that's you.
I don't think ANYBODY deserves to be harmed by this pathologically
dishonest idiot, Otis Brown.
My $0.02. YMMV.