Talk:Iridology

For past talk:
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive3 (25 Jan 2004 - 10 Feb 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive4 (10 Jan 2004 - 1 Apr 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive5

removed facts

' According to Dan Waniek, he -- along with Mircea Olteanu, Dan Jipa, and Stefan Stangaciu, in conjunction with the Computer Vision Research Group -- have spent 20 years studying experimental trans-iridial light therapy, in Romania. This claim has been partially substantiated by Vincenzo Di Spazio, "At the end of the 1980s, an evocative hypothesis was advanced on the part of iridologist and chronobiologist Dr. Dan Waniek, who postulated a non-visual function of the eye which he referred to as "Functio ocularis sistemica" (PHOS)." (2000) '

I have not seen any convincing reason for removing these facts, which are quite helpful to those researching this topic (which would apparently be theresa knot, mr. waniek and adam, and prob nobody else ;) Sam Spade 06:28, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, if this is verifiable I can't see how it would hurt the article in general.--User:192.94.73.4

The concern is that wikipedia could be used to provide the appearance of legitimacy where it may not be warranted. It's a tough issue, since it often involves judgement calls, but I think we should err on the side of caution - if there are serious questions, leave it out. After all, there are people out there who have spent 20 years studying alien abductions and "NASA's faked moon landing" and have developed evocative hypohteses by the boatload, but we don't give each one of them a paragraph (at least, I hope not) - DavidWBrooks 15:50, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't find it questionable they've spent 20 years studying iridology resulting in only two publishable papers, one of which was sent to a pay-to-publish journal (Med.Hypoth.) Full articles have been already given to true nutcases such as Archimedes Plutonium -- the precedent is there already. As long as the information is not misleading (such as listing essays as publications), I don't see how the information above would hurt the iridology article. The message it communicates is clear: "20 years and still not much on hand".--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

While your basic point (the utter unimportance of the information in question) is well taken, including it would harm the article in the same way that listing the batting averages of Little League Baseball players in an article about baseball would be: it suggests it is important information, and it is not. It distracts from understanding: it does not add to understanding. An article should not be composed of trivia: it should be a review of what is important, rather than a collection of what is unimportant. - Nunh-huh 22:47, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

we should. Sam Spade 18:59, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

wiki is not paper, deletionism is anti-wiki

Deletionism is anti-wiki is just a slogan. I'm sure there are more solid arguments for keeping or deleting stuff off wikipedia.--192.94.73.4 22:35, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Multiple points. 1) "Deletionism" is seen as anti-Wikipedia by some; others feel it is important to maintain standards. 2) Asking for the removal of information that many editors feel is misleading and substantially too unimportant to merit inclusion in this article (or really any article other than perhaps one on Waniek & Co.) is not necessarily deletionism. 3) The belief that Wikipedia is not paper is important to keep in mind in many situations, although I would submit that it does not demand that Wikipedia become a repository for all things that have ever happened (one might envision thousands of articles devoted to every house number in London and the names of every family ever having inhabited that dwelling....though of course certain addresses, such as 10 Downing Street are excellent examples of possible exceptions) -- indeed, the question is not "should Wikipedia include things not in EB?" (to which we should reply "Yes! Wikipedia is not paper!) but "should Wikipedia include this specific information, which appears to many editors to be biased, misrepresentative, and misleading concerning iridology and its leading practitioners today?" to which "Yes! Wikipedia is not paper!" becomes a less convincing response to me. Of course, Sam is free to disagree with me (and by now, what can I do but expect such a thing? ;-), but I hope that Sam will agree that his remarks are too hasty and inapplicable to serve as conclusive argument here. Sam likely does have an excellent point (he often does) and I look forward to its being expressed here. Jwrosenzweig 23:41, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

there isn't a very good argument in favor of the Iridology article itself, outside of the above. It is a fringe science. I have discussed it with a medical proffessional who knew of it, and they seemed to find it humerous at best. On the other hand, yes; your reference to the streets of london is a perfect explanation. I'd like to have an in depth article on every person, living and dead. Maybe even have a dna blueprint for alot of them. Terrabytes are cheap, and the future is full of faster, bigger, cheaper and better. I don't see why we should draw the line on fringe science, so long as it is clear that is what they are. Do you honestly think Waniek & Co. is/are unqualified as Iridologists? How could anyone be? Are their schools for this? It isn't recognized as a medicine legally in the US, and so I would assume no liscensing is necessary. Is there a liscense for a Iridology in romania? Honestly, I prefer to get as much information as possible from as many sources as possible. It is really best to require the accuser to present the evidence. You accuse mr. waniak of being unqualified, but what is a qualified Iridologist? A snake oil salesman? A hypnotist? just what are the qualifications you'd like to have proved? Will mr waniak have to cure you of something? I'm already following the Iridology program (minus the light in my eyes part) as best as I can tell, so maybe I'm a qualified Iridologist ;) 'Wiki is not paper' is important to point out w silly extraneous articles like this one, and 'deletionism is anti-wiki', because the point is to ad to, repair, rewrite, produce more content. Simply deleting alone is anti-thetical. You must ad content as well, and prove your case with citations and facts. Personally, I'd love to see it investigated. Is their a romanian wikipedian who would be willing to look into mr waniak in person, ring him up and examine his creditials? We could all throw in and pay the fee's ;) Sam Spade 23:57, 8 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I don't ask for qualifications, Sam. I'm asking for proof that the iridology community believes his work is hugely important, or at least important enough to merit the prominent position Waniek is giving his research in this article. He doesn't have to cure me -- he does have to show that the community of iridologists believes his work to be ground-breaking. There are heroes within the iridology community, I do not doubt -- I'm happy to note their work as influential, whether or not I think they can cure me (I don't). But if Waniek isn't influential in his community, I don't think we should say he is. And I'll say it seems to me also that you and I have a different idea of the limits to WP's scope, Sam. :-) I had considered long ago asking a Romanian-speaking Wikipedian to look into Waniek's writing, etc., but I decided I didn't want to bother someone else with what was not their problem. I'd be open to it, though, if enough people agree it's important to get to the bottom of this. Personally, I feel satisfied about my conclusion, but am open to having my mind changed. Jwrosenzweig 16:05, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Indeed, I think the best way to treat a controversial subject such as this is to allow its proponents to describe it without much interference in one section, then let its critics have their say in a separate section. Mkweise 10:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

exactly. NPOV is point, counter point, and sythesis where all agree. Sam Spade 10:15, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

It's one thing to allow this when the proponent is focused on the issue -- say, at Shroud of Turin User:BobDaniels posts a lot of stuff about why some people believe the SoT is Jesus' actual burial wrapping. That's just fine, I think, especially if Bob uses formulas like "Shroud believers contend that...", but even if not: we'll just have another section for skeptics to outline and propone their POV. But I think we'd agree that, if Bob Daniels was a fellow who'd written a lot of crackpot stuff about the Shroud for 20 years and gotten it published in some fringe magazines here and there, we would object to his stating "The Shroud's authenticity has recently been affirmed by the research of Robert Daniels, one of the world's foremost experts in the analysis of ancient textiles and in the provenance of religious artifacts." It's one thing to give a proponent room to move in defense of an idea. It's another to give them room to promote themselves in unseemly fashion. That's my beef. Jwrosenzweig 16:00, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, its a good thing I never tried to describe Waniek as one of the world's "foremost experts"; despite my personal POV that Waniek is the most famous iridologist in all of eastern europe -- my addition was simply a notation that the person exists, and should be of interested to someone interested in iridology. Lirath Q. Pynnor

I concur w lir, and I'd ask you not tpo limit our scope, Jw. One of the coolest parts about the wiki is its unlimited potential.nI'm not saying to exaggerate, I am saying to give him his due, and if you don't think he is 'respected by the iridologist community' (gee, what does that entail? A giant eyeball poster, or what?) lets see you prove he isn't. I'm saying the standard here is SO low, (unlike the shroud of turin) that any wacky crackpot is prob a leader in the feild ;) Sam Spade 20:11, 9 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Well, Sam, our scope here is limited, if only by the fact that articles can only get so long before they're too long to be of use. :-) I have yet to see any site not owned/operated by Waniek that treats him as anything more than one minor researcher. I have noted the CNRI site specifically as one that seems to consider Waniek simply one of dozens of researchers, not notable enough for them to refer to even the scope of his research. Therefore, I would say that, while he doesn't seem "disrespected" by the community, his inclusion in an article entitled "Iridology" seems strange. It is as though I was arguing for the inclusion of a paragraph in the Poetry article on "Michael Daley, a poet who emphasizes the need to write about the locales and places in which the poet lives." Michael Daley is a real poet (and a good one) who is a friend of mine. He has been published on several occasions in poetry journals over the last 30 years, most notably in American Poetry Review. He does emphasize the need to write about the places in which one lives -- not a completely original idea in poetry, but he's more articulate about it than many, I think. Daley may well deserve his own article.....what he doesn't deserve is mention on the Poetry page. He is not well-known outside of a few circles within poetry, and no major poetry site would mark him as a "unique voice in modern poetry", even though there are some original and interesting ideas in his work. Waniek is similar, in my eyes -- a minor figure who is published in a couple of places, and has a couple of interesting ideas, but who is certainly not a well-known or influential figure in Iridology, based on the fact that most references to him on the web seem to have been placed there by him. Waniek can have his own article -- I'm fine with that. But there's no more reason to mention him here than there is for me to add Michael Daley to the Poetry article. I hope I'm being clear. Waniek apparently has done enough that a very brief article on him might be appropriate. He should not, however, be given prominent place in Iridology because there seem to be many organizations and individuals that are more notable in that field. That's my position. Jwrosenzweig 17:29, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

That is a fairly sensible position. I would say that your analogy is acceptable, with one striking difference... the scope of poetry is HUGE, wheras the pseudo-science of Iridology is small. Their simply arn't that many people even interested in it, much less researching in the feild. I agree w you about poetry, and I encourage you to write an article on your friend. On the other hand, I think poetry, which has been a passion of many for... dare I say ALL of literary history, and a good deal of oral history beforehand, is a different matter entirely. In summary, would you compromise on an external link to waniaks page? Sam Spade 17:52, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I personally would accept that -- as long as the wording of the link made clear what it is. Not "Iridology Pros and Cons", then, but "Iridology as described by an Iridologist" or something like that? And you are correct that poetry is a little big to be a good comparison, but I'm afraid I don't know any fringe scientists for a more apt analogy. :-) Jwrosenzweig 18:46, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Meaning well and talking hell

If textiles, poetry and the shroud of Turin are brought into the discussion of iridology only to offer some ersatz of legitimity for deleting facts from Wiki, then why do we need talk ? You, people, are simply incompetent in the field, malevolent, thought police officers, relativizers and, all in all, in an advanced state of denial. This is an interesting social symptom which Noam Chomsky once mentioned in the sentence "Endgame: the closing of the American mind". Too busy in administering various levels of pharisean attitudes and mingled into way too many mistakes and lies on a daily basis, you simply cannot mean well even when you try to mean well. We've seen that before. It's called hybris. If merecenaries, paid 1000 USD per day to shoot women and kids happen to be caught and lynched, this is - hold on your breath - "desacration". So in "an eye for an eye" policy (literally hundreds to one), more hundreds of kids and women are killed to "avenge" the mercenaries. They are liberated, OK... But the US Army regrets having to kill you in the process - because you simply happen to be there... And they decided it is the wrong thing for you to do - living there. Welcome to the inevitable closure of the American mind: War is peace. Ignorance is virtue. Truth is lie. Read the corporate press and open the corporate TV - and you will eat your daily portion of your lies you seem to crave for. This is such a rampant decay! Simple minds gone south, repeating as parrots "it's the stupid, stupid". "Debunkers" and game players, losing touch with human feelings, let alone reality, every day now. The inevitable effect of piratocracy and servants having become masters of slaves, hunting and killing some witches all along in the process. This is the Rule of law of the New American Century! Business as usual... You know, people, in order to talk, you must mean well. And if well you mean, thou canst not then be false to any man! As you see I'm back now! And relax, do your cutting and shut uup! Silence, on tue! Happy editing ! :O) - irismeister 22:18, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

PEOPLE ARE USING ANALOGIES AS TOOLS OF DISCUSSION! IT'S THE END OF THE WORLD! THE SKY IS FALLING! THE SKY IS FALLING!!!!!eleven —Chicken Little

Analogy yourself then, my young friend :O) We are all basically apes, aren't we, genewise, and with our perpetually humid noses? Only naked. And... human. The specific difference in analogies has this habit of being far more interesting than proxies. Tools of discussion, waiting for the next asteroid, so to speak, do not include laser-guided diversions, do they? Or do I miss the ana in your logic of logos ? - irismeister 10:21, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Relax, people, it's only killing of consciousness. The exact reflection of actual killings in the field. It does not matter what truth is or is not, as long as the party line is what I say! I can remember a political figure of my youth, whose husband was victim of a political trial. She actually said for the record that "if the Party declared my husband guilty and executed him, then he MUST be guitly! So nothing new, really ! - irismeister 22:48, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

I agree. Comparing a hypothetical similar situation to an actual situation, in order to gain greater understanding, is a terrible, terrible thing. Let's go tell the king. —Henny Penny

It's embarassing. He's as naked as the Emperor right now :O) - irismeister 23:08, 2004 Apr 16 (UTC)

Regarding your comments, Dan, I would submit it does not take someone "competent in the field" of iridology to make a reasonable assertion about who is and isn't encyclopedic in that field. Only someone who has a decent knowledge of how to write a good encyclopedia article. I think that characterizing people as "malevolent, thought police officers, relativizers and, all in all, in an advanced state of denial" is not helpful to discussion -- we are simply trying to present the best possible neutral description of Iridology. I hope and trust you will apologize for your rudeness.

I wish you wouldn't accuse us of lying: "Too busy in administering various levels of pharisean attitudes and mingled into way too many mistakes and lies on a daily basis, you simply cannot mean well even when you try to mean well." You get awfully upset if anyone suggests that you are lying -- is it too much to ask that we be extended the same courtesy? How would you say our attitudes resemble those of "Pharisees"? And why do you assume we cannot mean well?

Sans blague ? Can you ? Prove it :O)

Ah, but is it not Wikipedian principle to "assume good faith"? It is not for me to prove that I can mean well, but for you to prove that I cannot. Or so I believe. Jwrosenzweig

If by "hybris" you mean "hubris", then I wonder that you accuse us of overweening pride. After all, this is what we are suggesting is true of someone wanting to list himself prominently in an article where it seems he might not belong. I don't know how it is "proud" of me to object to this placement -- I certainly don't intend to be. Perhaps you can tell me how I am being proud?

Hey, Rosie, so good to hear you again :O) Google, google Mr Rosie (Scribble, scribble, Mr Gibbon :O) I like your elegant gavotte, although the kisses are a little too humid to my taste :ODEG). Makes me wander it they are really part of a gavotte. Hmmm... Let me see: looks like farandole, tastes like gavotte, but smells like danse macabre to me. Should I write my own Vado Mori as long as I am not wikibanned for good ? Look, Rosie - your currente calamo provides endless entertaining moments for my debilitatingly for ever less free time. Therefore, as a premium for your being a gentle police officer, much unlike underintendend Ms Knotttt, I will offer you a free lunch :O) The u in hybris is transliterated as y no matter what your beloved idol Google thinks he thinks... That's why we call it un ygreque... Or perhaps - please tell me if I'm googling too fast for you - I'm wrong in assuming you prefer beta codes to Reuchlinian approximations ? Now about that pride: you better be - you certainly are one of my fastest growing admirers :O) - irismeister 13:10, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

I would like to ask you not to call me "Rosie" -- we're not old friends. If you like, I will refrain from calling you "Dan" (it occurs to me I took a similar familiarity with you, which was likely unwarranted -- I apologize). I am glad you like my approach, though I'm sorry you think it nothing more than an elegant dance. I'm not much of a fan of dancing. I wouldn't care for a lunch, and I doubt we'll be crossing paths anytime soon anyway, but you are very kind to offer it. Please don't take little jabs at Theresa here -- it's not very nice to do so, especially as she isn't in this conversation. I have never seen the word transliterated as hybris, but you may well be correct for your language. All that I know is that every source I've ever seen (no, not on Google) calls it "hubris", and my noting that spelling, furthermore, was merely to make sure I did understand your usage. And I'm not the biggest fan of Google in the world. It is merely a useful tool for many purposes, but one that must be used with care. Jwrosenzweig

Look, amigo: You seem to be an idolatrous adept of Google. You went so far as to insinuate that if I wasn't on Google, I didn't exist. Then you played monkey with Google researcher extraordinaire Theresa Knotttt looking for me or for Dr Waniek in the IPs of the blue Mediterranean where he spends most of his time writing on a small but cosy fishboat. Now here is my answer to your candid, nice and genuinely legitimate question :O) It concerns the Google research algorithm: Do the following:

01. Go to www.Google.com
02. Type in weapons of mass destruction( but DON'T hit return)
03. Hit the "I'm feeling lucky" button, NOT the "Google search"
04. Read the "error message" carefully.
05. Now tell me if you like it :O)

Yes, most amusing. My point is not that Google's search algorithm will bring up the proper link at the top -- on the contrary, I have worked down through page after page of results to find the right information. But no matter how many pages I look through, I cannot find sites that praise Waniek openly that are not controlled by him. Perhaps you can give us 5-10 such sites? Jwrosenzweig

You've just been Googled, rosie ! : o ) : O ) : O )) You are lucky though! Because I happen to like your sensuous, slippery, humid writing. Others have been (or will be) larryflinted :O) . We are all luckier than you even think about it. Still others are bombed out of their POV with "legitimate" assassinations these days. Talk about academic debates and the right to express yourself, values or opinions in the thought police state ! - irismeister 10:05, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

I don't particularly care if you like my writing, or if you like me. This is no thought police state -- after all, you were banned (and rightly so) for your insulting and hostile behavior here, not your unpopular medical opinions. Unless you have evidence that some other justification was used for your being banned? Jwrosenzweig

Regarding your statements concerning Iraq, culminating in "read the corporate press and open the corporate TV - and you will eat your daily portion of your lies you seem to crave for," surely it has occurred to an intelligent man such as yourself that many Americans are not in favor of our country's actions overseas, and many more are conflicted. I do not crave lies, myself, and I am sorry you feel I do. But won't you admit that our comments about this article and about you have really nothing at all to do with Iraq and America's military presence there?

Regarding your comment, "Simple minds gone south, repeating as parrots "it's the stupid, stupid". "Debunkers" and game players, losing touch with human feelings, let alone reality, every day now," I think again this is intended as an insult to me and others on this page. I wish you would not say rude things to us, but rather to respond reasonably. The comment "And relax, do your cutting and shut uup! Silence, on tue!" is especially out of line, I think, especially for a user who has often extolled the virtues of free speech. I will not shut up about things I feel are important. I am not going to ask you to shut up. I will ask you not to be rude, but that is a very different sort of request, as I hope you'll agree.

We don't have to be enemies here, Dan. Please adopt a different approach so that we can discuss things more profitably. Jwrosenzweig 23:22, 16 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Pal, you can edit iridology and I can't. You can thank the Wiki quality department, I can only mend here and there sixth grade mistakes. You are innocent of physiology and I spent thirty years in physiological research. You can only talk principles when and if (and only if) you make sure first the other party is not allowed to talk. It's iridology talk page, remember? Reminds me about Us diplomats lecturing about rule of law when everything they do is done so that it remains above the law. Relax again, pal! Rudeness is in attitudes, like meaning "well" and talking only hell - everything but iridology. Nobody is above the law! So don't look in the general direction of the Emperor. Not only is he naked, not only the fig leaf has fallen, but there is nothing to see :O) - irismeister 20:40, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

So what is it that you'd like to add to the Iridology article, iriswardster? Why the tail chase? Just state it here in the talk page, justifiy your point, and someone will eventually add it for you. This is the sort of game you seem to have not comprehended in the past. So long as you will not push your iris-ward link in, your thirty year's experience is very welcome and will be appreciated to its value. Just don't soil it with comments on other people's competences. Not nice.--192.94.73.5 21:08, 18 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No thank you, 192, I'd rather not. You'll have to keep up. That's how progress is made. If you want to control everything and reduce everything to your simple mind, it isn't interesting any more. It's much more interesting if you manage to keep up with me, by raising up your spine and giving up searching in the dirt for links or not links. That's mean. And anyway, dirt is not where knowledge is. It's not interesting for me to read you loud the manual. Enjoy ! - irismeister 21:47, 2004 Apr 18 (UTC)

That's precisely my point, irisward. I presume you can always contribute your vast knowledge without necessarily pushing that stupid link, can you? It's the information, the "competence" that matters, isn't it? I'm positive there is more useful stuff you should contribute to the Iridology subject besides calling others simple minded. For a start, here's a most sincere question for the professional in you: can you think of any evolutionary justification for a disease signaling system through the iris? how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive better than others?--192.94.73.5 04:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Good point then - remove my edit ban ! As for the evolutionary justification, you just hit the jeckpot, young lady. There is a reason for that. The iris would have been completely opaque, like other "membranes" if the evolutionary purpose was to provide a diaphragm and an "iris" diaphragm only. Cunningly, it isn't. And it isn't opaque at a price. It takes more efforts in this war economy called homeostasty to keep the iris transparent and variably transparent. Presumably, there must be an important physiological reason for this largesse. As great American physiologist Walter Cannon put it, the body, in its wisdom, makes no unjustified expenses. The challenge was to see why the iris was transparent in the first place. Was it only an "imperfection"? Dr Waniek, Professor Olteanu, Dr Stangaciu, Dr Mircea Popescu and myself thought the iris was anything but an example of imperfect structure adapted to its functions. So we looked into measures of the pattern of iris transparency (PIT). Moreover, the iris distributes light in a very peculiar and strange way - towards the peripheral retina. There are a few quite interesting studies on the links between iris sectors and the ora serrata. Sadly, they keep being cut from iridology and even the iris anatomy articles by less than simple minds, for spurious or only mean, jealous and "herostratic" reasons. This leaves me the only alternative conclusion - Wiki thought police sees only what they want (or are simple enough) to see :O) Take the sixth grade "fight or flight" insertion which scraps the whole article defiguring it beyond recognition. What the hell does this sixth grade "notion" have to do with non-visual iris functions? What ? There is an immense irony in the vanity of Theresa who inserted it to show how clever she was: She neither fought for her edit nor did she fly towards the closest reference book on her presumably crowded police underintendent desk. Never mind her! Talking about apes: at least they are not naked... What is your postal address ? I will send you a reprint from the milestone peer reviewed article I published with dr Popescu, dr Waniek, and Professor Olteanu twenty years ago! - irismeister 09:00, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Irismeister, please obey the AC's ruling and stop making personal attacks.theresa knott 20:33, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

You have been edit banned by a body other than me, and I have no power to call for its lift. Your comments about evolution are interesting -- what sources would we use to substantiate this information if we were to add it to the article? I'm not going to go "Googling" for it, as I'm sure you want to suggest. Just provide a source or two so that it's clear this isn't merely your private conjecture (and to be fair to you, it doesn't have that immediate appearance, so I'm expecting you'll have sources). To the anonymous user, I am sorry to say this (as it will no doubt upset Irismeister), but I have to encourage you not to post your address. Dr. Jipa was found by the AC to have made legal threats against several Wikipedians, and while I have every hope that he has been rehabilitated, it would be wise not to provide information which could be used to litigate against you in the future. And Dr. Jipa, though you are no doubt angry that I have just said this, I hope you will understand that I feel I have to say it in the interests of protecting all users who contribute to this resource. I believe you can change your approach and am hoping that you have. Thank you. Jwrosenzweig 15:42, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

No address, no reprint :O) Rosie, I have yours, but I'm against unsollicited scientific information - this might look like spam. Your sources are my sources and are part of the world's scientific heritage, for breakthroughs (including yours) make (legal) history, you know :O) And if you bother to read what you edit you'll find they have been repeteadly cut by Wiki thought police. It strikes me as a lack of sense of humor to ask for what you keep deleting :O) - Happy editing, rosie - irismeister 16:33, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Dr. Jipa, you aren't giving me any sources in the above. It really is a simple request, as I hope you'll realize. I haven't deleted anything from this article (to my knowledge) save one paragraph and one link that struck me as self-promotion. Are you suggesting that the only sources you can provide are papers/sites related to you? Why not offer the names of sources? Jwrosenzweig

Ooups, sorry for rosie - just read the above, Dr Rosenzweig. Rest assured we'll remain in the academic realm, habits and agissements. As for no power to ban, or de-ban, well, considering your pattern of behavior so far, the written record and various other snippets - like the archives of these very pages, please give me a break, doctor. Genuinely interested in editing some iridology research, anyone ? :O) - irismeister 16:42, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)

Dr. Jipa, I wish you'd point out where I banned or unbanned anyone as a result of this article. What pattern of behavior are you referring to? The only behavior of mine I see as a pattern is consistently asking you to provide sources for your assertions, and being rebuffed at every turn. If you refer to the matter of arbitration, I did not bring you to arbitration, and I provided (to my recollection) one paragraph of evidence against you, consisting solely of what I perceived to be your unfounded legal threats against me. I don't believe that paragraph caused you to be banned, though it may be part of the evidence contributing to it, but as it was your behavior, not mine, that caused the ban, I feel no real responsibility for it. And I am genuinely interested in editing here, but I am still not being given answers to my questions: specifically, what sources can be used to justify your comments above regarding the iris? Jwrosenzweig 18:46, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)

(questions about evolution and iris by 192.94.73.5 01:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC))

OK, so let me see: Theresa insults me, polices me, censors my article, works for banning me, has her way in not letting me edit for ever what I happen to know best, says I am a liar, and pulls sleeves like a police academy undergratuate. You are anonymous, Dr Rosenzweig talks about anything but iris, and you all still want me to "contribute". In the process I get my time lost, insults, more time lost, tons of paperwork for "arbitration" committees, more insults, more sleeve-pulling, more time lost to read the physiology manual loud, intimations over intimations to provide sources (the same sources that somebody just keeps deleting) and then I am offered "rationales" for continuing. OK, what's the purpose here ? In conclusion, now what is the bargain, and what is the deal ? - irismeister 17:41, 2004 Apr 20 (UTC)

Can we take it from the above that you are unable to answer the question? theresa knott 18:11, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Dr. Jipa, I'm afraid you haven't read my posts very carefully -- I've talked about irises on numerous occasions, and my last post actually ended with a question about the iris. The only times I've been distracted from discussing irises this week were my responses to comments you made which several people here took as insults aimed at them, and my warning to an anonymous user not to post their address for their own protection. The warning wasn't aimed at you at all, so I'd say my discussion with you has in fact focused on this article and getting sources to back up assertions, except for occasions when your behavior has forced me (I feel) to respond to how you are acting here as opposed to what we need to be writing here. I am sorry you find this evasive. I personally feel that you have been evasive, and my comments which are not aimed directly at dicussing iridology are simply me trying to follow your train of thought as it evades iridology, usually into commentary that I find dismissive or rude. If being involved here is such a waste of your time, I hope you will find better ways to spend it: conversely, if you think your involvement here will add worthy information to Iridology, then why not answer a couple of questions so that we can establish some sources and actually make this article more in line with the truth? I am puzzled at your responses. Jwrosenzweig 21:16, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Irismonster, my having the IP disclosed here makes me less an anonymous than your hiding behind your user name and claiming not to be Waniek-WARD. Exactly which physiology manual already answered questions your research had addressed 20 years ago? Exactly which physiology manual deals with the evolution of a disease-signaling iris? Why can't you just forget about all your inner conflicts and focus on the damn questions below?--192-94-73-5 02:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Evolutionary iris

Iriswardster, since you seem to have a problem with focusing, here's a second take at a competent discussion (as you loudly kept advocating until recently). I am copying below the discussion and would beg you remain focused on the discussion without involving your strong emotions about Theresa and the other admins:

• [...] can you think of any evolutionary justification for a disease signaling system through the iris? how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive better than others?--192.94.73.5 04:31, 19 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• [...] As for the evolutionary justification, you just hit the jeckpot, young lady. There is a reason for that. The iris would have been completely opaque, like other "membranes" if the evolutionary purpose was to provide a diaphragm and an "iris" diaphragm only. Cunningly, it isn't. And it isn't opaque at a price. It takes more efforts in this war economy called homeostasty to keep the iris transparent and variably transparent. Presumably, there must be an important physiological reason for this largesse. As great American physiologist Walter Cannon put it, the body, in its wisdom, makes no unjustified expenses. The challenge was to see why the iris was transparent in the first place. Was it only an "imperfection"? Dr Waniek, Professor Olteanu, Dr St*ngaciu, Dr Mircea Popescu and myself thought the iris was anything but an example of imperfect structure adapted to its functions. So we looked into measures of the pattern of iris transparency (PIT). Moreover, the iris distributes light in a very peculiar and strange way - towards the peripheral retina. There are a few quite interesting studies on the links between iris sectors and the ora serrata [...] Talking about apes: at least they are not naked... What is your postal address ? I will send you a reprint from the milestone peer reviewed article I published with dr Popescu, dr Waniek, and Professor Olteanu twenty years ago! - irismeister 09:00, 2004 Apr 19 (UTC)
• What were the conclusions drawn from your research, then? I have seen the FOS hypothesis formulated several times now both on your website and here in the talk page. Without having me disclose my address or request an interlibrary loan, could you just give a very short summary of the conclusions your group had drawn following the research? And I reiterate one earlier question: how would an iris-disease-signaling ape survive others any better?--192.94.73.5 01:10, 20 Apr 2004 (UTC)
• (answers are very welcome and appreciated here)--192-94-73-5 02:09, 21 Apr 2004 (UTC)

~ Gentlemen, at this point I feel the discussion has cooled enough for me to point out the following: The finer aspects of peripheral retina physiology, and the non-visual functions of the iris have a far better chance to be discussed and understood in front of more competent people than the usual Wiki police. Good will should be enough even for incompetent peoeple. Sadly, more and more I find it impossible for me to instruct you in novel approaches and ideas. Nauseating as it is, the "grab and insult" approach prevails here, as much as in several other current "cultural" products of the "we set the rules, we ask the questions - you just be happy to contribute as untermenschen" " approach " aka known as the American "business as usual" mentality. For me it's unacceptable to continue in front of such barbarians. No way. If you want to find out how the iris does anything in evolution (this needs not include either you or Wiki), just shut the hell up and listen to the basics: thou shalt treat your fellow Wikipedian as a trusted friend, the way you want to be treated yourself. Once I feel you have done the necessary things in order to improve substantially and to my satisfaction, we can discuss. That's all. irismeister 16:49, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

The discussion hasn't cooled. It's been stalled by your apparent inability or unwillingness to have a dialogue with us and answer some important questions. The reason you find it impossible to instruct us is because you fail to answer our questions -- the most elementary task for a "teacher" dating back to Socrates. A teacher who is content merely to spout off jargon and then refuse to clarify or detail anything is a poor teacher, indeed. Please do not refer to anyone here by the word untermenschen, a slur you know is associated with racism and death. Please also don't tell me to "shut the hell up". I have every right to ask simple questions, and it is not disrespectful to do so. It is, in fact, the essence of the Wiki process. And it is not Wiki to treat someone as a trusted friend who has been neither trustworthy nor friendly towards me. I will treat you, if you are here, as a colleague, but one who must answer a number of important questions, and one who is refusing to do so. I have not been rude in doing this, and I reject any insinuation on your part that you are being rudely treated here. You are being treated with firmness and high standards -- it may be uncomfortable for you, but it is not wrong. That's all. Jwrosenzweig 16:59, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

So Jwrosenzweig, let me see once again, for your own sake: me insulted and banned forever from editing this stuff I know better, you knowing only what I tell you and you grab from some Google page, and you setting the rules and putting the tags (and stygmata) on people like me here, "democratically". You never apologizing as per my request, in writing. Remember your qualified, documented libel on record ? Calling these high standards. Remember the long nights you and I were "discussing" the subtler aspects of googling and your incessant interrogations on my "qualifications" and personal data, in lieu of non-visual retinal physiology? What on Earth do you call "standards" ? Are you serious ? For if not, then Orwell must turn in his grave. Not recommended. No way! Don't even think about it! Will wait until more sensible and knowledgeable Wiki police will arise quasi cursores. Have time, will wait :O) - irismeister 17:47, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

You were banned from editing this article for a reason -- I refer you to the Arbitration Committee's decision if you have forgotten this. You have no idea what I do and do not know: until you start answering questions here, it is hard to tell what you do and do not know. I will not apologize to you for having done nothing wrong. My comments to you were not libelous, and I resent the implication. I didn't spend any long nights discussing anything with you, that I can recall: I do recall being given misleading information, and your refusal to clarify apparent contradictions or explain statements which appeared, on the face of them, to be boldly false. I am indeed serious. I hope Orwell isn't turning in his grave -- I recall Orwell being a fairly introspective, critical, and questioning human being who wouldn't have any trouble with the kind of simple queries I pose to you. I don't think you, being intelligent, should have trouble with them either. And yet you still seem to avoid anything but persisting in your campaign against some perceived slights and what you call the "Wiki police state". Certainly won't get you anywhere with me, but then I suppose you've figured that out by now, which is probably why you continue to wait... Jwrosenzweig 17:55, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

Jwrosenzweig, you are too intelligent too, to suggest to me that Orwell was the dishwasher he was, as the current mantra has it, and not the double agent you and I have so many long instants of pure pleasure reading and quoting. Rest assured! The only thing I avoid is disingenious phrasing like the one you indulge in right here, avoiding the all-important written excuses, delaying them, like my own iridology ban, for ever. I'll wait, though :O) - irismeister 18:13, 2004 May 14 (UTC)

I have no idea what you're referring to with "disingenious phrasing" and no belief that you're about to start responding to questions here, so I guess I'll just go read some Orwell. See you back here in another few weeks, I suppose, unless you decide sooner than then that you will answer the questions being posed to you. Jwrosenzweig 18:18, 14 May 2004 (UTC)

It's good to read :O) Now, "le dialogue des sourds" notwithstanding, my own belief is that your excuses will come even before the retreat of our troops from Iraq :O) Make sure my name and nickname are contained in the body of the written excuses. In the mean time, let me visit the animal farm myself. Let me put it straight to you: there is good entertainment in corresponding with you :O) I dare not calculate what the focus on the iris will bring :O) - irismeister 19:10, 2004 May 14 (UTC)