Talk:Iridology/Archive 2

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I created our first archive (the page was too long):
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
This page: (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)

"There is neither monopoly nor trademark for the use of terms such as iridonomy for iridology like astronomy vs. astrology. However, there is a trademark for the wider, all encompassing, probably more correct umbrella term iridial studies".

What do you mean by this phrase ? theresa knott 16:23, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

What do you mean by this phrase ?
I mean what I say my dearest theresa knott (you are my preferred pupil here, so let it be widely known, especially since we have nothing to hide :). People have this old habit of giving self-enhancing status to the name of their trade: Consultant for old cranks. Surface technology specialist for broomstick holders. Therapist for sex workers. They go as far as buying noblesse for a price. You know, certificates issued, then stamped, wiped clean, suitable for framing and stuff. So basically you are an iridologist hunky, and use loads of pounds sterling to freeze the title you never earned as a trademark. Sadly, but this is it, things go like this in a liberal economy. We call this a meritocracy. Now you had people capitalizing on the -logy moiety while iridology is nothing even remotely looking like other -logies except of course for sister astrology. And lo, out of the flock of dull sheep loudly popped that silly flying goose inventing iridonomy to enhance her status under a second-order two-digit growth marketing plan. Under such overwhelming force concept, complete with commercials and palm reading, decent people in the knowledgeable field had to retire on all fronts. And since the monasteries were already closed, they had to open their own umbrella term of iridial studies, a neuter, you know, NPOV qualification, which was accurate. Eventually, of these last, one idiot found it useful to freeze the word in a trade-mark, so that other idiots would find it difficult to boast and fancy themselves as specialists under that title too. Now, as in Wiki (and arguably as anywhere else where people work on a first-come-fist-served basis) (no pun intended :) laissez-faire capitalism worked wonders. Those invisible hands of Adam Smith or survival of the first acting principles did the rest of the dirty job, and the net result is a doomsday register in a previous no-man-s land. Did this answer your lovely question ? If so, may I courteously retire now, and leave the definition of monopoly for our friends here as a homework ? Oh, never mind, dear Theresa ! Cut it all loose ! I will come again here tomorrow anyway. I feel I'm more useful for the new batch of my own silly goose in our family's back yard right now. They cry a lot and they might use some of my feeding-help right now. So bye for now, my dearest Theresa, and you may count on me ! For as long as I'm here, and I like what you do, and I do, never fear ! As a whole not only I really mean what I say, but also put my money where my mouth is. Me silly goose : ) Sincerely yours, irismeister 17:21, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

Hi irismeister. I am well today thank you, and you? needlessly technical term You may well have used the correct and precise term in the image caption, but it is not the only phrase which would be true. The caption could truthfully read the human eye. I still don't think that the catption is appropriate as it is.

technique certainly we can change this to discipline. The link to discipline should be removed though. If you follow it and read that page you will see it's not relevant (talking about self-discipline).

alternative health changed to alternative medicine, OK I agree that's fine

colored part the iris is commonly described as the colored part of the eye, this was designed to help people who are not familiar with the anatomy of the eye to understand the article. They can of course click on the link to iris for more comprehensive coverage. Remember that this entry should be comprehensible for people who know nothing about iridology.

Iridology is currently more popular in Europe than the USA "who cares about that" I don't see what was wrong with including this. This article should discuss how widespread the practice of iridology is in the world.

It has its origins in the work of Hungarian physician Ignatz von Péczely (1826 - 1891) and is still practiced today. I found this reference in several places. The later comment (which you also removed) to centuries of study was designed to show that iridology was part of a long tradition.

It has evolved from many centuries of study of the anatomy of the human eye what is wrong with this? Have people not studied the anatomy of the human eye for centuries? Does iridology not draw on this information?

its key theories From theory "There are two types of theories; a supposition which is not backed by observation is known as a conjecture, and if backed by observation it is a hypothesis." - so a hypothosis is a kind of theory. Key means core or central, most important.

Iridology is viewed with skepticism by parts of the medical community I will agree with.

Physicians dispute the claim that the human organ of sight is also capable of reflecting the health of every major bodily system. also refers to the idea that the eyes are used for sight and also judging the health of a person's whole body. Most physicians do dispute this. Would you accept the phrase with Many or Most at the beginning?
Fabiform 17:01, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hi, honey ! You know, as I said before, it's becoming tiring to continue with vox clamantis in deserto with people needing basic training so badly and knowing NOTHING about whatever they are so busy editing. Wiki is an encyclopedia, not toilet training. Please, before you do a non-trivial edit in the future discuss it on the talk page. Major edits without discussion will be reverted. Bravo for already doing so and catching the good habit to refer to specific items. That's a great leap forward for you! However, considering that you already were neighboring the precipice, not bravo for taking my time with silly questions, but why should I complain ? Let's go back to toilet training:

still don't think that the catption is appropriate Think, honey, think, cauz' it's good for health. But if you don't get the point, leave it ! Cut, you're good at doing that for things you don't understand. Do not refrain. I will not repeat part one of ten (please look above). Nor shall I read you Wiki articles, like taxonomy for what you don't care to do by yourself, naughty pupil, na na : )

The link to discipline should be removed though. Then do what you should and don't bother me with this silly point of yours any more. I leave it to your far greater experience, and fascinating wit. Cutting to the red tape, if you remove discipline you are never bored when alone, I'm sure : ) So why don't you put the depths of your wisdom at work and disambiguate your own POV on discipline and then redirect baby, qs (remember ?) We've saved the day if you learned something new. You are lucky too. With other editors who toilet trained me I was lucky in my turn. At least oblige and reciprocate in the future, bud!

OK I agree Good pupil. Bravo. Brings a tear into my old cranky eyes. I do not teach for nothin' after all ;O )

iris is commonly described as the colored part of the eye Now you caca de vaca your nice senior Wiki fellow. Not recommended. Look, bud, geocentrism for Copernicus is commonly described as what it is. The role of encyclopedic Copernicus (a Wiki precursor, there should be no doubt in your mind) was, nevertheless, to point to this heliocentric thing and cry it out loud. Now that was a time of assassinations and immolations. Aren't we both sooooo lucky then ?

designed to help people Designed ? Disinformation by design ? Debug your system, bud ! Wiki is not a place where we help people become redirected to moronic temp directories where black is white. who are not familiar with the anatomy of the eye to understand the article.

They can of course click on the link to iris for more comprehensive Now you spread this caca de vaca all over. It spills, bud ! If you have to click to white only to find out that's black...

Remember that this entry should be comprehensible for people who know nothing about iridology. Don't worry, honey - you make me remember this wonderful truth at every single intelligent contribution you make on this page! Just look at how full of memories these pages are ! And we're only heading towards the next chunk of 32 kbs... Thank the LORD we do not spoil the Canadian forest or any other source of pulp paper in the process. It's 100% recycled bits, you know : )

This article should How would ya' know, shouldy honey ? Now you're coming to mamma to learn something, then you tell her what she should teach you. Na na, not good : )

this reference in several places Bravo, good for you ! Than forget about this old crank who teaches you. Look on, and on and on. We call this a bud who dies of thirst near the river. Na na, it's much more simple to use the potty mummy brought to you. Caca de vaca elsewhere, look no further than what you cut - you know, before reading it.

Does iridology not draw on this information That's what it should do, honey. Checked some of their doings, lately, you know, before you raise their status with your POV ?

so a hypothosis is a kind of theory No go back to sleep, honey. You are tired. You did good so far. Why spoil it with this spilling caca de vaca. Get and education, baby. Practice. Read what you cut before you cut. Do I have to train you THAT long ?

Would you accept the phrase with Many or Most at the beginning Go to bed, my friend. You must be exhausted.

Sincerely, compassionately, pathetically and patiently yours, irismeister 20:27, 2004 Jan 22 (UTC)

Well, irismeister at least it sounds like you're entertaining yourself. Pretty tiresome for the adults here, though ... DavidWBrooks 20:32, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister, would you please read this Wikipedia page. Perhaps then we can engage in a productive discussion. Fabiform 20:45, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Way to go David. :) I think that your version still needs some work, but it's a great basis for an encyclopedic article. I'm going to stick that medical disclaimer back at the bottom (it's boilerplate wikipedia text) and start wikifying. Fabiform 23:25, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Irismeister, hello. I imagine you will have some changes to suggest to the article as it stands. Please make your comments here so we can discuss them before editing the article. "Major edits without discussion will be reverted".

I am reasonably happy with the article in its current form. It would probably benefit from more polishing, but I think that we have made a good attempt at a balanced (NPOV) article.

Comments everyone? -- Fabiform 02:01, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I think you've done a pretty good job. I'd like to see more detailed evidence of debunking - I may well reasearch this topic and some myself. I think the tone is reasonable. But what i particulaly like is that the page "reads" well, is written in good english, with a mininmum of jargon and appropriate level of wikification of links. Irismaster if you edit this page please bear these points in mind. Most people reading this article are likely to be laypersons who do not understand the jargon. I am well educated, I have an honors degree in physics from UCL yet I can not follow most of what you are saying because your prose isn't in plain english. Please write for your readers.

As for the medical disclaimer, It's not necessary. A disclaimer link was recently added to the bottom of all wikipedia pages so that we do not have to add individual disclaimers like this. theresa knott 11:34, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

David did a great job on the article when wikipedia went down. :) About the disclaimer, I didn't realise, thanks for explaining. And if there's a bigger debunking section there should perhaps be a bigger section explaining the theories behing iridology, or common trends in irirdology or something like that (for balance). And I second everything you said about plain English Fabiform 15:25, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree, I would like to see a proper in depth description of exactly what iridologists do. theresa knott 16:26, 23 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Hello, again everybody : )
Hello, fello, don't keep your mood sooo lo, and bravo for your respective homework's, my friends: ) You tried hard, no doubt ! Fabiform was fabulous. Unfortunately, for the lot of this article, and for the length of these pages, where is a will there is not always a way. You simply lack too many things, friends, in order to be editors on iridology. Your energy, time and dedication is now reaching new heights, nearing obsessive-compulsive gray zones. Obviously might be better used in spellchecking - a really constructive hard work. Much more useful for your contributions than your obstinate cut-and-past without checking. Everybody, repeat after me: I-ri-de-s. I-ri-se-s are only flags, buds ! Or is this your POV that Wiki readers need your confusion more than you need opening your own dictionaries ?

Perhaps then we can engage in a productive discussion
About what, baby ? Revealing the blatant incompetence in would-be competent peers is not a POV, never a personal attack and always saves everybody's time ! To say nothing about lives ! For medical articles, my fellows, like medicine as a whole, is - please repeat after me - that territory where if you are in-com-pe-tent, no matter how hard you try, you may bring suffering, death and - read Primum non nocere as a new homework- lots of sor-row. So, please, if you feel frustrated by your fascinating level of knowledge in the subject you so effectively kill (and about the track record of these pages) then by all means do not bring it down to personal attacks or whatever. It's so, so pathetically narrow-minded. Not interesting. It's much more interesting if you can learn something in the process ! I wish I could here too, but with you as a peer editor, so far I fail to see what. But you nevertheless tried hard even if you diverge and divert. Try more focus (remember part one of ten, in the archives ?).

Pretty tiresome for the adults
Is this for laughing, DavidWBrooks ? If so, please add some graphical indication, so that I might not set a good laugh loose for this entertainment. The ordeal I have to pass through, while I baby-sit you, my dear, needs a good laugh now and then. It mandates it or I will die of boredom. With adult entertainment such as this one you provide us all not being my main concern while I teach you the basics, baby, please bear with me that by the end of these archive pages you will at least go to part three of ten of my mini-series ! Well, well, well ! It's that I sympathize enormously with you people in need - too tired to open a few books between exhausting cut-and-paste sessions : )

Please make your comments here so we can discuss them '
I see no reason to continue medical, anatomical, historical or even basic English training here for incompetent editors. It's a such loss of everybody's time. We are heading nowhere, my friends. You simply are not competent enough. And really stubborn, reluctant to learn anything. Why should people who wrote less than say, 100 major contributions and published a few in a peer-reviewed process venture to contribute for articles they don't know about ? They could use a spellchecker if they really want to help constructively.

I am reasonably happy with the article in its current form
Duh ! This article has been neutered towards the general direction of castration. It contains no more valuable new information than the science page of New Hampshire Monitor (circulation in excess of 24,000). It will become more of a mess with every new documented cycle. It only was a pulpit for you to make yourselves busy and important. You need it so badly ! As much as you need such happiness...

I'd like to see more detailed evidence of debunking
What are you talking about ? Get an education before you debunk anything ! Don't caca de vaca everybody here anymore. It is perhaps ironic that removal of valuable internal Wiki links by Wikipedians themselves, now mandate the permanentization of the disputed tag - now as a consequence of the very NPOV editing process. Ignorance, my friends is no excuse - it's a point of view. The only one you care for - but not for editing it out. This is the lot of a good policy in the wrong people.

would like to see a proper in depth description of exactly what iridologists do
So would I, my dear Theresa, but with our friends here who need soooooo much propedeutics, we simply aren't there yet. Like babies, they only feel the urge to show mammmma the potttttty they filllllled soooo welllll. Good boys, good work ! As myself, you only have to be patient enough. They grow up right as you read this.

may well reasearch this topic and some myself
That you did ! To no avail ! For it's not enough to do research if you are not a researcher at heart, baby. Simply stating this and that while you cut-and-paste horrible material which you don't know how to parse, let alone put somewhere, digest or even understand - is no good. People who know nothing about the content they are so busy and proud editing collegially only make fools of themselves in the process. Potty potty is now fully fully. I will not embarrass you any more, baby, with my baby-sitting corrections. Enough is enough ! Get an education then come back here to do articles people could use more than toilet paper!

Most people reading this article are likely to be laypersons
Noooo, editors like you are much more likely to ! And with you, I spent enough time already. I see there is no way to include more stuff in this Wiki article any more. I will only edit out the grotesque POVs and correct a few mistakes while I toilet-train you.

And I second everything you said about plain English Duh ! Mediocrity rules supreme. Go to Wiki in special English and become useful at last ! It recently moved from mediocracy in a red shift towards moronocracy. It is pathetic how you try so hard to give you a good conscience, fellows ! Not that you don't work, but it's hopeless mediocrity that you increase in the process. What a pity for the cause of new knowledge! Rampant decay and componentization-happy fellows! Now be proud of you ! And now that you finished this article in a mess, please go back to more cut and paste to neuter even more articles in the general direction of castration ! Catch as catch you can - not me : )

See you later, aligators ! Mamma commends you on the potty ! Now put it back where mamma can wash it properly ! Smells like an article! Almost looks as an article ! But...irismeister 22:14, 2004 Jan 24 (UTC)

Dear Irismaster. Please do not make personal attacks. References to toilet traning are insulting. I cannot be bothered to discuss this page anymore with you whilst you continue to talk in this manner. I will continue to edit the page howwever to prevent you inserting techno babble whether you like it or not.

I understand your pains

My dear friend, I understand your pains. Perhaps you also understand other pains too: The pain of seeing ignorance posing as qualité maitresse , while it is arrogantly displayed, and promoted to the status of master censor to determine the destiny of value. These are only growing pains, my dear friend and Wiki fellw peer editor . It is enough for you not to mix add your own choice of qualifying epithete work with good work (the way babies do before they are trained with the potty), it is enough for you to know what you are talking about, and to try hard to avoid grotesque mistakes and I will train you no more. It's really up to you ! In his quest for quality, Voltaire went so far as to write "écrasez l'infâme ". Si parva licet componere... I certainly do not crush you! I only very, very, carefully train you, baby ! The gentle, patient, compassionate way! Using my time and my energy which could be better used in more Wiki articles ! So, if anything, you should be honored ! If you feel honored as you should, Wiki will grow in the process, and you will also grow in knowledge, compassion and experience. And who knows? Maybe, one day you'll come back here on this iridology talk page to thank me for my patience : ) If you know less flooding an "approach" to incompetence, please say so! I understand it's hard to be incompetent, and to want to play competent symmultaneously. But ignorance is no excuse. And there are no substitutes and workarounds, even in your culture, for real knowledge. Real knowledge, acquired the hard way. Per aspera ad astra ! Ad augusta per angusta ! Look what these mean and write back, please! In the mean time, start by displaying a better behavior yourself ! Like doing some real research about what you write, or only cut. Like not cutting what you haven't read first. Like disserting, editing and recommending less and simply reading and writing more.

Sincerely, 81.49.213.23 12:28, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)