Talk:Iridology/Archive 3

This is an archive of past discussions about Iridology. 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.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

For past talk:
Talk:Iridology/archive1 (3 Apr 2003 - 22 Jan 2004)
Talk:Iridology/archive2 (22 Jan 2004 - 25 Jan 2004)

Research Attitudes, anyone ?

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)

Proposing revertions

Looking back through the recent edit history, I think the following sections should be put back into the article:

current version:
"There are three published studies indicating a lack of success for some of the iridological claims:"

what I wish to restore:
[Criticism] "1. There is no known mechanism to explain what it claims is a connection between iris appearance and various aspects of health, and iridology does not present any testable hypotheses about such a mechanism.

because:
It is a clear summation of a common (and important) criticsm, avoiding doing what the article does now which is to jump straight into the particular studies about iridology.

--

current version:
Blank.

what I wish to restore:
"3. Patients who require mainstream medical treatment may be lulled into a false sense of security by iridology and delay consulting with their physician, which may be injurious. See also: Quackery."

because:
It's an important criticism of iridology.

--

These two omissions make the article more imbalanced than it already is.
Fabiform 13:49, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

I agree the first needs to be there, but don't think No. 3 should go back in. It's a very general (and IMHO legitimate) criticism of alternative medicine, but I don't think it's needed specifically here - it opens the door for arguments against for-profit medicine, which is a very general argument used in favor of alternative medicine. I think this article needs to stay very specifically focused on the eyeball stuff. DavidWBrooks

Hmm, that makes sense. Perhaps we can scare up two good links to tack on to the end of the article for further reading/context: quackery v. money-talks medicine (both negative). Or maybe we should leave well enough alone. I really want to put it back in even if it doesn't belong there. ;) NPOV is tough. By the way, I only put in the third benefit (holistic) because I'd thought of a third criticism. Do you think it's a valid benefit? I'm happy enough to leave it in, even if it's a bit fallacious (implies that MDs don't consider the body as a whole). Fabiform 18:00, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Cooperative authoring by no means SYMMULTANEOUS !

There is a pattern my friends of you inviting me to help with your mess and jumping in the very moment I do exactly that. This is the third time in a row. LOOK AT THE DATE TIME STAMPS ! I see you are all naughty and want to fill the potty, but hold it right now ! One sick person at a time : )

My dear friend,

We can't BOTH edit the article at the same time without congesting the already congested Wiki servers and adding more editing conflicts. If you don't have patience, and ALWAYS jump in to cut what I didn't finished writing, you'll NEVER get the chance to learn something. Including manners. Behave like a grown-up ! One sick person at a time : )

what I wish to restore We are not there yet. Some intermediate steps might help:

Wait until I finish my sentence and then restore dialogues;
Listen. You don't listen. Try to understand what I am saying;
Judge by youself (using your own mind processes, not cut-and-paste, that is);
Restore some credibility with the SPELL CHECKER - a very useful tool before restoring anything else;
Breathe deeply, and if you can't restore some sanity, please go to step one. One sick person at a time : ) : )

Sincerely, your patient mamma irismeister 17:40, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC) (and don't call me names - it's IRIS-MEISTER : )

Copied from page - ". Medical doctors performing iris examinations may use biomicroscopes and gonioscopes, colorimeters and spectrophotometers, image analysis and anterior ocular chamber echography. "

I am not familier with many of these terms. However I do know what a colorimiter is. I use one at work. I am interested in how a medical doctor would use one of these devises to perform an iris examination, as the ones I have used need a sample to be placed inside a chamber in the machine. theresa knott 18:05, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Ouch!

I was beginning to find this annoying until IRIS-MEISTER took the time to recommend we use a SPELL CHECKER. Thank you, I've rediscovered my sense of humour about the whole thing. Fabiform 18:07, 25 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Oh, Theresa... did you see my comment on your talk page? I stuck it in the middle so you might not have noticed it. Fabiform

No I didn't see it so thanks for pointing it out here.I've responded on your talk page.

And I've answered you. :) Fabiform

- ---- - Friends, Fab's fabulous sense of humour is paradise regained :) Fab, by all means, use your check, your pecking order, use your pecker in the backyard, use anything, but keep the rythm, baby : ) Now ye'all naughty pupils stop reading this and go back to the iridology page - I let you some homework to do. Finish your stuff there and if you can still add something interesting, then I'll see about you here again. Theresa, dear, how do YOU play with a colorimeter ? If you understand color, we'll talk about the use of colorimeters in medicine at large, baby, and maybe also about the Rayleigh Raman Tyndall psychobabble thing, you and me, together baby. Keep dreaming about catching me though, he he : ) - Your patient mamma irismeister 19:01, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC) commends you all for the good sport you are : )

-

File:Newtonianfig3.jpg

-

(Theresa dear, it's much more simple than the Schroedinger cat thing and the
color of quarcks :) Gedankenexperiment: Please replace Dark with White and
Galaxy with pupil above. Good girl ! Now you have a mental representation of
our common, tiny, beautiful object of interest (OoI). Surely you won't put it
inside anything just to measure color, wouldya ? Didn't they teach you pho-
tography at the University of London ?

- - I am not familier with many of these terms
- That's an euphemism, dear Theresa. They are only simple stuff, you know - you just have to care about opening a book or two. A few more magic touch sessions with your pen, since you draw so well, and lo, voilà , you get the whole picture. Why not also clicking here and there now and then for a change ? Do you want your mamma wolf to feed you with already digested stuff ? As for the colorimeter - why don't you use your imagination ? Do you really think that at midnight, in the deepest of the Scottish night, all cats are black ? : ) For instance the first MRI thing did not allow your little finger inside, and now whole grown up persons get inside for a price. Recently, in Holland, a really weird research plan even put two lovers inside, together, completely embraced as they were, only to get some funny live anatomy pics, as if they didn't know what went where and why. So you see, MRI imaging gets more and more for a buck these days and there seems in this world to exist more room, for ever larger, for stupid research. Colorimeters are not all the same baby. Just all men all created equal, and we hold this thing to be self-evident like in the US Constitution. You don't have to open traps like on your desk to put in some enucleated eyeball just to measure color. There is a thing called pho-to-gra-phy, baby. Much more clever, you see ? Perhaps you watch too many movies : ) Keep on, catch on, update the system, and then come here for some useful discussions, later on : ) In the mean time let me write the article on colorimeters and stuff, now that I'm over with my all-important babysitting.
- Passionately yours, irismeister 20:22, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

----

Irismeister, a question for you... are you Dr Dan Waniek of the Iris-Ward.com, or are you perhaps one of the people who have attended one of his seminars for example? Fabiform

people who have attended one of his seminars : )

Yeah, and I hate him for what he knows. He pretends to be cool but is only a cold blooded Steppenwolf. Tried to do better and make a fool of the guy, but as you can't catch me, me can't catch him, the nasty animal. Pretty much sure of him and he really knows this stuff he teaches. His article BTW is unbeatable. Like Medline, I can't avoid including it here to keep NPOV alive and well. He once administered me a MCQ and I was way under the 72nd percentile. Felt humiliated. I hate him! Besides, I'm much worse than anything you can imagine as a result, and want to cut him into pieces myself. With my bare hands. Being a stubborn teacher myself I turn everything upon you, nice fellas, cauz it worked for me. Whatever he did to me worked wonders, except that I hate him. But now you take advantage of me and my time! It's not question time yet, pal. Go back to editing and to your own page (where you've got mail, my friend)! Here in Wiki we're not into personal matters and in this specific page we only talk iridology. Of course, if you still can. Please!

Passionately, irismeister 23:47, 2004 Jan 25 (UTC)

If you are not him then why have included the iris picture from his site? It's copyrighted. theresa knott 10:14, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

(Later) Also why do you use the nickname irismeister ? Surely you are aware the he calls himself that ? His email is irismeister@iris-ward.com after all. Why does he have links to you wikipedia userpage on his website? Is is just a coincidence that you are both Romanian. Is it also a coincidence that you are both interested in ancient history? In short are you telling fibs when you say that you are not he ? I will remove the link to the iris ward site because it is a vanity link.theresa knott 11:17, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Thought Police

Please do not intervene in my answer to fab, Theresa dear! And you will remove nothing that is Wikified, useful and NPOV any more, my dear Theresa ! You already removed stuff from this page, and this is ground for banning you from Wiki. I will raise your case to the appropriate instances in due time, but rest assured, I can already confirm that a thought police attitude, lack of basic critical, scientific, human and even English skills are not encouraging. In the mean time, the fact that you care more for arbitration than for articulation of your thought and mental processes, is even more discouraging. Last, my citizenship, interests, skin and eye color, are more relevant for neo-fascists, communists and Nazi thought police than for a page dedicate to a REAL contribution to iridology. Please rest assured that I take your attitude quite seriously ! I am only a five-star irismeister, a title that I earned in a peer review process, with a well documented track record, including taking Dr Waniek's seminars with a score above the 68th percentile. How about you dear ? You will not drive iridology or Wiki into Orwell-land, trust me ! Passionately, irismeister 14:28, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

Unfortuneatly you have driven Fabiform away from this page. He has taken this page off his watchlist. The stuff I removed was a long insulting comment to me from you. I removed it because i find for example you calling me "baby" offensive. However if you insist I'll add it back in. I don't care anything about your skin colour, interests etc. I only mentioned them because i firmly believe that you are Dr Dan Waniek and was pointing out that if you are not him then you share his nickname, interests, nationality etc. The p[oint i made about the iris picture is important. Should I list it on copyright violations or not? I have no intention of driving iridology into owell land as you put it, but I will remove links to personal websites. Wikipedia is an encylopedia not an advert for your dodgy site. theresa knott 14:43, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Theresa - Ignore insults; it's much the best way of dealing with them. But stuff shouldn't be removed from talk pages, no matter how juvenile; these are designed to serve as permanent records (unlike ever-changing articles). Also, leaving the ranting here demonstrate to others whose comments they can discount. DavidWBrooks 15:48, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

OK Thanks David for your calm attitude. I've added the comments back in. theresa knott 16:31, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Theresa please don't cut things from talk page ! (Third such request)

The p[oint i made about the iris picture is important
Theresa dear, what are the points you made? Besides making a point of honor out of jumping in and cutting things you are not qualified enough to judge, read, let alone throw away without checking, I mean. Please refrain from cutting again ANYWHERE. The link you keep cutting is that of a registered corporation, the firtst world iridial studies site, a Google first, and the place where I learned what you don't want to be taught. Personal therefore is only your POV which I will edit out on every occasion. Be careful though, I will watch all your activities from now on, since you are in my view, dangerous to the Wiki community, to the memory of George Orwell (it's not owell, dear - why don't you click one more time out of the Del button ?) and the cause of truth. What are your articles ? The nice bucket and spade drawing let aside, the (cut) / (read and write) ratio of your "editing" activity is nearing infinity because the denominator tends towards zero. So your stubborn thought police activity on these pages is only a way to let everybody know about obsessive compulsive behavior. Please behave decently, and do not jump to conclusions. Non supra crepidam , baby ! And you didn't put back what you cut - only your VERSION of it. Again, ground for banning. Very carefully yours, irismeister 21:13, 2004 Jan 27 (UTC)

Note for anyone reading this page - I went to page history - found the edit where I cut stuff - clikced on diff, selected all the stuff that I had cut then reinserted. theresa knott 21:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)

"Free" speech - the "issue" here

The two photographs on this page (and on the iridology:talk page) have been censored. Free speech here is dead. Welcome to the Encyclopaedia Orwelliana of the Brave New World : ) It's a corporate watchdog. Beware! You can't say anywhere in Wiki that corporations are criminals, even if they are. Understand ? Truth is irrelevant. Still not understood? Truth is lie, and at best, it's only a "point of view" - henceforward called a "POV". Capisci ? What matters here is a tyrant's supreme thinking, precious indication and unchallengeable statement. Which tyrant, pray ? This is a superior creature, above mere authors - and all mortals for that matter. This is called "the Wiki editor" - usually not an author, very badly informed, not capable of judging the weight of evidence, but extremely trigger happy, hostile expert in bad manners. I decided to suspend all new articles to Wiki as a result. It's a waste of time. Sadly, I learn nothing new here. Editors who are not authors themselves, will never learn from me either, because their own ignorance is only surpassed by their own arrogance. They will only revert to the wrong version, cut without reading, and redirect - without knowing where. They will do this endlessly, until Wiki becomes irrelevant. Already I see the trend of deletion, redirection, and mediocrity surpassed only by the editor-to-author growing ratio. Wiki will become a kleptocracy and a kakocracy, not an ad-hoc-cracy and a meritocracy. Democracy is drowned in piratocracy. Long live the Patriot Act and the suspension of freedom for an obscure reason . However, I will remain here until I'm censored completely. I will fight on and edit mercilessly all disinformation, bad taste and lies. They kicked me out for vandalism, and they did not kick out the vandals - who were rewarded for their contribution . George Orwell must turn on his side in his tomb.

Request for hard ban on Theresa Knott and DavidWBrooks

User:Theresa_knott vandalized the iridology:talk page repeatedly. Her spelling is always biased towards insulting POVs. User:DavidWBrooks questioned this editor's sanity (see below). It was this questioning that I reported six days ago. Apparently my report was misunderstood. I was banned as a consequence. Enclosed are the relevant passages. Both User:Theresa_knott and User:DavidWBrooks said this:

being polite is awfully annoying at times. - DavidWBrooks 16:56, 22 Jan 2004 (UTC) Politeness is a form of excess, mister David W Brooks. It is necessary. Excess of irrelevance is not necessary : )

"Eventually he'll get bored and go away. DavidWBrooks 15:58, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)"
Psychologists would be fascinated. DavidWBrooks 18:42, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
I find it particlaly strange... theresa knott 19:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
iridoligy has to be paid for by the patient. They might like an idea of how much.theresa knott 12:27, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)
Unworthy for Wiki editing, methinks : )
Sincerely, irismeister 14:01, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

A small note on irismeister's character

Removed abusive use of double square brackets on author Dan Waniek - his being subject of a Wiki article is a blatant POV : ) By now, the tyranny of florid, overt, full blown dyslexic editors outsmarts the tyranny of cranks :) Follow her wit : ) I find it particlaly strange... theresa knott 19:29, 27 Jan 2004 (UTC)
iridoligy has to be paid for by the patient. They might like an idea of how much.theresa knott 12:27, 2 Feb 2004 (UTC)

References

On tyranny of the cranks

Page is reverted to Teresa knott's last version and protected in consequence of a long series of POV violations by irismeister, with no attempt to discuss rationally that I can detect.

Also, I removed the "page is disputed" header. I'm not sure if this last was a good thing to do or not, and would welcome advice. I'll consider restoring it if requested.

Tannin 14:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Well, the neutrality of the articles is disputed, but only (I think) by irismeister. The article still needs some polishing, (and a the before national health!), and I think we were agreed that it would be good to expand the section on the theories behind iridology, and how it is supposed to work. Irismeister spent most of his time ranting though instead of making the changes we would have welcomed. Anyway, thanks for your protection of the page. I'll leave it to people who are less involved to say whether the NPOV notice should have remained or not. fabiform | talk 15:07, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Critic of Purée Reason : )

no attempt to discuss rationally that I can detect
Needs reason, yeah... Very badly needed... I can see your point : ) So why not let us attempt to talk, then, like in not protecting the page ? : )

Also, I removed the "page is disputed" header. I'm not sure if this last was a good thing to do or not, and would welcome advice. I'll consider restoring it if requested. Tannin 14:21, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)
By all means, please! It's really a mess right now, so the header is perhaps mandatory. Our friend Theresa has a known track record of vandalizing it repeatedly. Perhaps "cut and protect " is what she can do. Clearly, using spell checking in lieu of the image editing facility in Word is not : )
Sincerely, irismeister 15:25, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)
12747 total number of pages edited during the three months free speech Wiki period : )

Offensive incompetence

Dear fab,
While I welcome your coming back on the iridology page, I must remind you that complaints, sycophants, mediation etc., are not my main concern. Please understand this: incompetence is far more offensive than anything , including my friendly attitude towards incompetence , and incompetence in information is a possible killer. Lies kill, disinformation kills, and disinformation about medical issues has already killed in excess of 100,000 patients per year in the US only. Fighting incompetence and indeed an all-out war against disinformation has become mandatory for any follower of the Hippocratic oath and especially the primum non nocere "thing". Complain as you can, it's your prerogative. My job is to prevent incompetence and blatant liers to become mainstream. Lies are killers, my friend.

References

Jason Lazarou, Bruce H. Pomeranz and Paul N. Corey, "Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: A meta analysis of prospective studies," Journal of American Medical Association, April 15, 1998, 279(15): 1200-05.
This study found more than 100,000 deaths per year and 2,000,000 severe side effects in U.S. hospitals alone. However, this study did not include deaths from pharmaceutical drugs that occur outside the hospital, or deaths from prescription errors by doctors or pharmacists. Additionally, because 90-99 percent of all adverse drug reactions are never reported (see following reference), this figure should be adjusted substantially upwards.

David Kessler, " Introducing MedWatch: A new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effect and product problems," Journal of American Medical Association, July 2, 1993, 269(21): 2765-68.

Not deleting information on talk pages

Fab, you keep cutting my messages to you on this page. Why do you give us ground for banning you ? Sincerely, irismeister 15:59, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)
12787 total number of pages edited during the (three months) free speech Wiki period, period . Will start losing time in writing articles again, only after "ignarrogants " will stop cutting them without reading them... : )

Note to anyone reading this page - Fab has not deleted any messages on this page. The above message was cut and pasted by iris bully from fabiform's talk page. theresa knott 16:45, 3 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Note for Theresa
Of course not from this page, baby. Only from his talk page. Hence its inclusion here so that real information does not get lost like in your contributions on this page : ) When would you let me stop babysitting, Theresa ? When would you start behaving like a serious grown-up baby ? : ) Theresa, stop watching your favorite fellow Wikipedian and do some work of your own, on your own ! Sincerely, irismeister 17:31, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)
(12,789 page edits in three months)

Mylord, the quack is back : )

Kindly inform you that the pseudoscientist and quack holds two doctorates and one postdoctoral title, all in medicine : ) He published seven volumes and fifty something articles on the issue, (all in peer-reviewed periodicals :) He is a full professor of iridial studies, holder of several registered patents, and one in probably less than a dozen world-class five-star irismeisters : ). He also recently initiated 23 major Wiki articles.
To be compared with special-English, spellchecking expert extraordinaire Ms Theresa Knott, currently an author of several bucket-and-spade illustrations using the Word image editing facility. Ms Theresa Knott recently made Wiki headlines vandalizing the iridology:talk page and making a point of honor out of cutting stuff she doesn't either read, or spell correctly, let alone understand : )
To be continued, quote : )
Ah, I checked and see that you're right. Irismeister is the quack. It doesn't matter to my changes, though, what I had removed was probably something he wouldn't like me to remove anyway, which was the POV benefits section he had probably just edited at the time. Keep up the good work against the quacks and pseudoscientists! - Lord Kenneth 01:00, Jan 29, 2004 (UTC)
unqoute
So, mylord, you may wish to revise the quality-maintaining policies in matters of general Wikipedian interest, for the sake of good science, and yes, some good taste : ) In the mean time I will edit the given article one sentence at a time, to help fellow editors cope and adjust to the manners and habits of Wikipedia, the "free" encyclopedia : ) Sincerely, irismeister 10:09, 2004 Feb 3 (UTC)

I don't care what you degrees or education are, you're full of **** all the same. I shall aide Theresa in her battle against your ignorance. - Lord Kenneth 12:23, Feb 3, 2004 (UTC)

Repeated request for hard ban on Lord_Kenneth

Com'on mylord, say what you know about the quack I am and let truth silence only the perpetrators of ad hominem like the one you are. I thought you understand taste. You only badly need more toilet training before adding anything else, mylord : ) (quote you're full of **** all... here unquote :)°
Not recommended : ) Unworthy of anything, let alone lordship : ) Sincerely, irismeister 08:57, 2004 Feb 4 (UTC)
13,000+ page edits in three months, and growing with every new babysitting session :)

Help needed

cross-posted to Talk:Alternative medicine, etc

Our distinguished colleague Theresa Knott (theresa knott) has recently misled readers in at least four major medical articles (Mycobacterium leprae, alternative medicine, sodium hypochlorite, and iridology). We need competent editors to check all her medical "contributions" in order to avoid the mess and possible death that may arise as a consequence of maintaining her constant pattern of disinformation. Her editing is a health hazard ! Sincerely, irismeister 15:34, 2004 Feb 7 (UTC)

Baffled by the image caption

I have tried to decipher this caption several times and must confess to being baffled:

The iris is the only living tissue of humans always visible naturally, with eyes wide open.

What, pray tell, does this mean? I generally am able to see many bits of living tissue, of both my own and others, in addition to the iris. For example, there is the living tissue on my hands. Am I missing the point entirely? --Delirium 12:58, Feb 8, 2004 (UTC)

I believe this refers to the fact that the outermost layers of skin are composed of dead cells. Living skin cells are underneath these dead cells, and are therefore not visible. Similarly, the other visible parts of the eye - the cornea and the white sclera - are either composed of or covered with dead cells. - MykReeve 19:32, 8 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Yes - but we could remove the "with eyes wide open" phrase, which rings oddly against ears wide open. (Is the page still protected?) DavidWBrooks 20:11, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Agreed. By the same token, the word "always" could be removed too - because eyes are not always open, and I can't think of other living tissue which is "visible naturally" only part of the time. Looks as though the page is still protected. - MykReeve 21:47, 10 Feb 2004 (UTC)

Dear Delirium, whatever you see on your hands, hair, mucosae, etc. is only dead keratin (details here - also look under the respective talk page, for specifics! Dear MykReeve, you are right in assuming the presence of dead keratin-imbibed cells in the transparent media around the anterior pole of the eyeball. You are, howewer, missing the point that - due to higher order in lamellae - these dead layers are totally transparent . You may remove anything, DavidWBrooks, except a learned reference to Eyes Wide Shut : ) Dear MykReeve, the point in the "always" addition is that if you don't keep your eyes open looking into someone's eyes, including yours, something like vision might not happen at all. As for the forced opening of the patient's eyelids, this is anything but natural :) Perhaps the original caption has merits afterall , but then again, who cares ? A rose, by any other name, would smell... : ) Sincerely, irismeister 18:31, 2004 Feb 13 (UTC)