Questions for Otis Engineer:
1. What physical structures within the eye are changed by using plus lens
therapy on an
anatomical myope (e.g. myopia caused by increased axial length of the eye or
increased
curvature of the cornea)? To state it another way, exactly what is it that
plus lenses
do that causes the visual image to be brought to focus on the retina of a
myope? What
anatomic structures within the eye are changed to achieve this? Do you
propose that
the length of the eye shortens? Do you propose that the curvature of the
cornea
flattens? Do you propose that the index of refraction of ocular tissues is
decreased?
2. How can you be so opposed to minus lenses for myopia treatment yet be
unopposed to the
use of LASIK surgery? In LASIK surgery you are simply removing plus power
from the
cornea by flattening it’s curvature (equivalent to adding minus lens power)
so as to
get the visual image to focus on the retina?
3. Explain how it is that plus lens therapy works for only younger patients
but not for
older ones? Do you think that the decreased effectiveness of plus lens
treatment for
myopes correlates with the onset of presbyopia? Doesn’t this observation
support the
notion that plus lens therapy is simply just helping the subpopulation of
myopes that
have an accommodative component to their refractive error? What about
anatomical
myopes? How do you propose we treat anatomical myopes who apparently, by
your own
experience, aren’t candidates for plus therapy?
4. Explain exactly what the "devastating effects" of minus lens treatment
are for myopes–
and I don’t mean OVERMINUSING them. I mean simply giving them just enough
minus lens
power to focus the visual image on the retina? Explain what the devastating
effects
are at an anatomical/physiological/biochemical level. What structures
within the eye
are changed by the minus lens?
Answer these questions Otis. Don’t give us any more one-rat studies or case
reports. Don’t sight any old texts or drop the names of famous old
optometrists. Just try to explain it on a truly scientific level.
RM
Actually, the primary target group for Otis is pilots. He primarily
pitches his plus lens therapy to them. The pitch to children is a new
approach for him.
DrG
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in news:cn863m01srv@enews1.newsguy.com:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Questions for Otis Engineer:
> 1. What physical structures within the eye are changed by using plus
> lens therapy on an
> anatomical myope (e.g. myopia caused by increased axial length of the
> eye or increased
> curvature of the cornea)? To state it another way, exactly what is it
> that plus lenses
> do that causes the visual image to be brought to focus on the retina
> of a myope? What
> anatomic structures within the eye are changed to achieve this? Do
> you propose that
> the length of the eye shortens? Do you propose that the curvature of
> the cornea
> flattens? Do you propose that the index of refraction of ocular
> tissues is decreased?
> 2. How can you be so opposed to minus lenses for myopia treatment yet
> be unopposed to the
> use of LASIK surgery? In LASIK surgery you are simply removing plus
> power from the
> cornea by flattening it’s curvature (equivalent to adding minus lens
> power) so as to
> get the visual image to focus on the retina?
> 3. Explain how it is that plus lens therapy works for only younger
> patients but not for
> older ones? Do you think that the decreased effectiveness of plus
> lens treatment for
> myopes correlates with the onset of presbyopia? Doesn’t this
> observation support the
> notion that plus lens therapy is simply just helping the subpopulation
> of myopes that
> have an accommodative component to their refractive error? What about
> anatomical
> myopes? How do you propose we treat anatomical myopes who apparently,
> by your own
> experience, aren’t candidates for plus therapy?
> 4. Explain exactly what the "devastating effects" of minus lens
> treatment are for myopes–
> and I don’t mean OVERMINUSING them. I mean simply giving them just
> enough minus lens
> power to focus the visual image on the retina? Explain what the
> devastating effects
> are at an anatomical/physiological/biochemical level. What structures
> within the eye
> are changed by the minus lens?
> Answer these questions Otis. Don’t give us any more one-rat studies
> or case reports. Don’t sight any old texts or drop the names of
> famous old optometrists. Just try to explain it on a truly scientific
> level.
> RM
Dear RM,
Thanks for your thougful questions.
I will forward them to the scientist Dr. Colgate
as well as other engineers interested in
true-prevention.
Remember that Donders-Helmholtz is a THEORY
where you ASSUME that it is FROZEN (as in
box-camera).
It is this assumption that has failed.
Any good engineer can optically analyize
a box-camera. The calculations can
be carried out to three, four and five
significant figures. But when you
are all done — you have proven nothing.
The answers you get depends on the type
of questions YOU LEARN TO ASK.
And the issues (and questions) I ask
have to do with the fundamental
question of the dynamic behavior of
the natural eye (as an entity).
But, I will review your summarized
statement that assumes the Donders-Helmholtz
theory concerning the eye.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
____________
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cn863m01srv@enews1.newsguy.com>…
> Questions for Otis Engineer:
> 1. What physical structures within the eye are changed by using plus lens
> therapy on an
> anatomical myope (e.g. myopia caused by increased axial length of the eye or
> increased
> curvature of the cornea)? To state it another way, exactly what is it that
> plus lenses
> do that causes the visual image to be brought to focus on the retina of a
> myope? What
> anatomic structures within the eye are changed to achieve this? Do you
> propose that
> the length of the eye shortens? Do you propose that the curvature of the
> cornea
> flattens? Do you propose that the index of refraction of ocular tissues is
> decreased?
> 2. How can you be so opposed to minus lenses for myopia treatment yet be
> unopposed to the
> use of LASIK surgery? In LASIK surgery you are simply removing plus power
> from the
> cornea by flattening it’s curvature (equivalent to adding minus lens power)
> so as to
> get the visual image to focus on the retina?
> 3. Explain how it is that plus lens therapy works for only younger patients
> but not for
> older ones? Do you think that the decreased effectiveness of plus lens
> treatment for
> myopes correlates with the onset of presbyopia? Doesn’t this observation
> support the
> notion that plus lens therapy is simply just helping the subpopulation of
> myopes that
> have an accommodative component to their refractive error? What about
> anatomical
> myopes? How do you propose we treat anatomical myopes who apparently, by
> your own
> experience, aren’t candidates for plus therapy?
> 4. Explain exactly what the "devastating effects" of minus lens treatment
> are for myopes–
> and I don’t mean OVERMINUSING them. I mean simply giving them just enough
> minus lens
> power to focus the visual image on the retina? Explain what the devastating
> effects
> are at an anatomical/physiological/biochemical level. What structures
> within the eye
> are changed by the minus lens?
> Answer these questions Otis. Don’t give us any more one-rat studies or case
> reports. Don’t sight any old texts or drop the names of famous old
> optometrists. Just try to explain it on a truly scientific level.
> RM
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> It is this assumption that has failed.
> Any good engineer can optically analyize
> a box-camera. The calculations can
> be carried out to three, four and five
> significant figures. But when you
> are all done — you have proven nothing.
So what structure changes to reduce myopia from -150 to plano?
-MT
> I will forward them to the scientist Dr. Colgate
> as well as other engineers interested in
> true-prevention.
Come on Otis. You try to talk like you’re an expert in this field. Don’t
you understand the anatomy and physiology of the eye sufficiently enought
that you can provide us with an explanation without having to ask someone
else?
> Remember that Donders-Helmholtz is a THEORY
> where you ASSUME that it is FROZEN (as in
> box-camera).
I never said the eye was a box-camera. I don’t believe anyone gave it that
label except you. My point is that the eye is NOT a box camera for younger
patients where accommodation is intact. In younger patients the movable and
pliable crystalline lens can add plus power to the optics of the eye when
acted upon by the ciliary muscle. Sometimes, for example, in students who
do lots of near work, or in patients who have been improperly overminused
during a refraction and have grown accustomed to the prescription, or in
patients taking certain medications, that muscle can become tonically
overactive and cause accommodative myopia. Indeed, those patients could be
benefited by plus lenses. That’s why we sometimes paralyze the ciliary
muscle using cyclopegic eye drops (atropine, homatropine, cyclopentolate,
and even tropicamide to a slight degree) during an eye examination in
patients where we suspect accommodative dysfunction. But accommodative
myopes are the exception, not the rule. And in presbyopes where
accommodation is basically non-functional, myopia is certainly caused by
other anatomical factors. Otis– you are the one who coined the frozen
box-camera slogan because it seemed like an effective slogan to coin against
those of us who criticize your "theory" (or should I say Dr. Colgate’s
theory since you don’t seem to be able to articulate any details about it).
> It is this assumption that has failed.
> Any good engineer can optically analyize
> a box-camera. The calculations can
> be carried out to three, four and five
> significant figures. But when you
> are all done — you have proven nothing.
> The answers you get depends on the type
> of questions YOU LEARN TO ASK.
Otis– answer the questions you were posed. Quit trying to bullshit your
way out of it.
> But, I will review your summarized
> statement that assumes the Donders-Helmholtz
> theory concerning the eye.
Those guys were geniuses in their time. If they were alive today they would
tell you that you’re not making any sense and that you need to have hard
scientific proof for your "theories".
Answer the questions Otis. Don’t give us any more case reports of young
accommodative myopes. Quit dropping names of famous old scientists to try
to create a smoke screen around your lack of understanding of the eye.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Best,
> Otis
> Engineer
> ____________
> "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message
> <news:cn863m01srv@enews1.newsguy.com>…
>> Questions for Otis Engineer:
>> 1. What physical structures within the eye are changed by using plus lens
>> therapy on an
>> anatomical myope (e.g. myopia caused by increased axial length of the eye
>> or
>> increased
>> curvature of the cornea)? To state it another way, exactly what is it
>> that
>> plus lenses
>> do that causes the visual image to be brought to focus on the retina of a
>> myope? What
>> anatomic structures within the eye are changed to achieve this? Do you
>> propose that
>> the length of the eye shortens? Do you propose that the curvature of the
>> cornea
>> flattens? Do you propose that the index of refraction of ocular tissues
>> is
>> decreased?
>> 2. How can you be so opposed to minus lenses for myopia treatment yet be
>> unopposed to the
>> use of LASIK surgery? In LASIK surgery you are simply removing plus
>> power
>> from the
>> cornea by flattening it’s curvature (equivalent to adding minus lens
>> power)
>> so as to
>> get the visual image to focus on the retina?
>> 3. Explain how it is that plus lens therapy works for only younger
>> patients
>> but not for
>> older ones? Do you think that the decreased effectiveness of plus lens
>> treatment for
>> myopes correlates with the onset of presbyopia? Doesn’t this observation
>> support the
>> notion that plus lens therapy is simply just helping the subpopulation of
>> myopes that
>> have an accommodative component to their refractive error? What about
>> anatomical
>> myopes? How do you propose we treat anatomical myopes who apparently, by
>> your own
>> experience, aren’t candidates for plus therapy?
>> 4. Explain exactly what the "devastating effects" of minus lens treatment
>> are for myopes–
>> and I don’t mean OVERMINUSING them. I mean simply giving them just
>> enough
>> minus lens
>> power to focus the visual image on the retina? Explain what the
>> devastating
>> effects
>> are at an anatomical/physiological/biochemical level. What structures
>> within the eye
>> are changed by the minus lens?
>> RM
Dear RM,
Intersting Post! I will pass it on to the
interesting parties.
Obviously this man was casually using the
plus for reading. I frankly only advocate
prevention for a young person who is at
about -1.0 diopters (variously 20/80 to 20/40)
depending on how the measurement is made.
It takes INTENSIVE use of the plus to
clear distant vision from -1.5 diopters
to 20/20. Shawn can testify to the
type of effort it takes. Most people
have no interest in that process.
But the ones who do can be successful
if they face scientiric facts,
and are prepared to make that kind
of commtiment. I acknowledge that
no one can ever "prescribe"
that kind of intelligence and
motivation. This depends
on the individual himself and not you
or me.
But to maintain our "balance" I will
pass your statement on to the interested
parties.
Best,
Otis
______
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cn40j40185b@enews3.newsguy.com>…
> Dear Prevention-minded colleagues,
> I have a case report I would like to inform the group about. I had a
> patient return today for a reexamination for eyeglasses. I will call him
> John Doe to protect his privacy.
> I saw him initially approximately 3 years ago. At that time he was a 55
> year old myope with vision of approximately 20/40 in each eye. Refraction
> was approximately -1.00D in each eye and correctable to 20/20. His ocular
> health was normal and unremarkable. I provided him with an eyeglass
> prescription for bifocals to correct his distance vision as well as his near
> vision.
> Today Mr. Doe returned to my office. He told me he never bought the
> spectacle lenses because he had grown accustomed to his distance vision and
> didn’t feel the correction was necessary for him to function. However, he
> did report that he has been using OTC readers since he did have a little
> problem reading small print. Despite his refusal to use the dreaded minus
> lenses, and despite his use of plus reading glasses, Mr. Doe’s vision was
> still 20/40 at distance. His subjective refraction was still about -1.00D
> OU. His keratometry readings were virtually identical to the original
> readings taken three years ago.
> All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
> myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
> matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
> you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> Yours truly,
> RM
> Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
news:6dbddb9.0411130640.6b0c8022@posting.google.com…
> Dear RM,
> Intersting Post! I will pass it on to the
> interesting parties.
> Obviously this man was casually using the
> plus for reading. I frankly only advocate
> prevention for a young person who is at
> about -1.0 diopters (variously 20/80 to 20/40)
> depending on how the measurement is made.
Really. So your prevention technique only works for younger people? That
ought to give you a clue Otis. Younger people have functioning, and
sometimes OVERfunctioning ciliary muscles which cause tonic accommodations
(read accommodative myopia). This subgroup of myopes, which are still a
minority even within the larger group of young myopes, are the only ones
where plus lenses have a chance to improve vision.
So I assume that you do agree that providing just enough minus lens power to
the eye of a middle-aged or older myope is OK. Correct? Or should they
just go around in a blur because you tell them minus lenses will cause
devastating effects while your group of experts can’t offer them any other
solution.
> It takes INTENSIVE use of the plus to
> clear distant vision from -1.5 diopters
> to 20/20. Shawn can testify to the
> type of effort it takes.
Shaun is a single case study, just as valid to the one I provided you. As
you have told previously, Shaun is an accommodative myope and is in the
minority.
>Most people
> have no interest in that process.
For sure! No one who complains of distance blur will accept anyone telling
them they need to wear lenses that make it worse. Impractical Otis. Any
besides, minus lenses never hurt anybody. Anyone with a small bit of
accommodative myopia will end up losing it when they approach age 40
(presbyopia). At that age the effectiveness of ciliary muscle action on the
crystalline lens is diminished. This is why your "prevention" technique
works only on a small group of myopes who are young. The ones it will work
on are all accommodative myopes. The others, who include the majority of
younger myopes plus nearly all the older ones are anatomical myopes. Plus
lenses have a snowballs chance in hell of helping them.
Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain what physical structures in
the eye are affected by your plus lens technique. Pulling out the old texts
by Helmholtz, Donders, etc. won’t help. Those folks, while quite innovative
for their time, had no access to the technologies that exist today and
constitute the basis for modern refractive technology used by optometrists
and ophthalmologist. (Or do you think its just a conspiracy?)
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> ______
> "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message
> <news:cn40j40185b@enews3.newsguy.com>…
>> Dear Prevention-minded colleagues,
>> I have a case report I would like to inform the group about. I had a
>> patient return today for a reexamination for eyeglasses. I will call him
>> John Doe to protect his privacy.
>> I saw him initially approximately 3 years ago. At that time he was a 55
>> year old myope with vision of approximately 20/40 in each eye.
>> Refraction
>> was approximately -1.00D in each eye and correctable to 20/20. His
>> ocular
>> health was normal and unremarkable. I provided him with an eyeglass
>> prescription for bifocals to correct his distance vision as well as his
>> near
>> vision.
>> Today Mr. Doe returned to my office. He told me he never bought the
>> spectacle lenses because he had grown accustomed to his distance vision
>> and
>> didn’t feel the correction was necessary for him to function. However,
>> he
>> did report that he has been using OTC readers since he did have a little
>> problem reading small print. Despite his refusal to use the dreaded
>> minus
>> lenses, and despite his use of plus reading glasses, Mr. Doe’s vision was
>> still 20/40 at distance. His subjective refraction was still
>> about -1.00D
>> OU. His keratometry readings were virtually identical to the original
>> readings taken three years ago.
>> All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone
>> with
>> myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
>> what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are.
>> No
>> matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and
>> experience
>> you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
>> argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
>> Yours truly,
>> RM
>> Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cn7r1601lak@enews2.newsguy.com>…
> "Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
> news:6dbddb9.0411130640.6b0c8022@posting.google.com…
> > Dear RM,
> > Intersting Post! I will pass it on to the
> > interesting parties.
> > Obviously this man was casually using the
> > plus for reading. I frankly only advocate
> > prevention for a young person who is at
> > about -1.0 diopters (variously 20/80 to 20/40)
> > depending on how the measurement is made.
> Really. So your prevention technique only works for younger people? That
> ought to give you a clue Otis. Younger people have functioning, and
> sometimes OVERfunctioning ciliary muscles which cause tonic accommodations
> (read accommodative myopia). This subgroup of myopes, which are still a
> minority even within the larger group of young myopes, are the only ones
> where plus lenses have a chance to improve vision.
Dear RM,
The young man in question was 13 when he started (at -1.5 diopters
and 20/60), and worked VERY HARD AT IT. This is NOT CASUAL
and not easy. He read Dr. Stirling Cogates experience using
a strong plus, and decided to follow his method.
Since he verifies that he had the POTENTIAL to get to 20/20 by
looking through a negative lens — he knew he had
to change his refractive status by the amount he mesured.
Since he verified his vision at 20/20 — after about six months — he
is content with his results. Also, and OD verified his vision
at the completion of his efforts, and told him to
tear up his previous prescriptions.
His parents also checked his work — and he had his
parents read the eye chart so he could compare his
vision to their vision.
But since you raise the question of "age" I have
posted some remarks by a pilot who is at 20/50.
By your "theory" he can not clear his vision
to pass the FAA required line. If you
are right — his vision will stay at 20/50.
I am prepared to pass your recommendations
on to him.
What do you suggest — he give up on planning
to become a fully qualified military pilot
with 20/20?
Best,
Otis
Engineer
________
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> So I assume that you do agree that providing just enough minus lens power to
> the eye of a middle-aged or older myope is OK. Correct? Or should they
> just go around in a blur because you tell them minus lenses will cause
> devastating effects while your group of experts can’t offer them any other
> solution.
> > It takes INTENSIVE use of the plus to
> > clear distant vision from -1.5 diopters
> > to 20/20. Shawn can testify to the
> > type of effort it takes.
> Shaun is a single case study, just as valid to the one I provided you. As
> you have told previously, Shaun is an accommodative myope and is in the
> minority.
> >Most people
> > have no interest in that process.
> For sure! No one who complains of distance blur will accept anyone telling
> them they need to wear lenses that make it worse. Impractical Otis. Any
> besides, minus lenses never hurt anybody. Anyone with a small bit of
> accommodative myopia will end up losing it when they approach age 40
> (presbyopia). At that age the effectiveness of ciliary muscle action on the
> crystalline lens is diminished. This is why your "prevention" technique
> works only on a small group of myopes who are young. The ones it will work
> on are all accommodative myopes. The others, who include the majority of
> younger myopes plus nearly all the older ones are anatomical myopes. Plus
> lenses have a snowballs chance in hell of helping them.
> Anyway, I am still waiting for you to explain what physical structures in
> the eye are affected by your plus lens technique. Pulling out the old texts
> by Helmholtz, Donders, etc. won’t help. Those folks, while quite innovative
> for their time, had no access to the technologies that exist today and
> constitute the basis for modern refractive technology used by optometrists
> and ophthalmologist. (Or do you think its just a conspiracy?)
> > ______
> > "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message
> > <news:cn40j40185b@enews3.newsguy.com>…
> >> Dear Prevention-minded colleagues,
> >> I have a case report I would like to inform the group about. I had a
> >> patient return today for a reexamination for eyeglasses. I will call him
> >> John Doe to protect his privacy.
> >> I saw him initially approximately 3 years ago. At that time he was a 55
> >> year old myope with vision of approximately 20/40 in each eye.
> >> Refraction
> >> was approximately -1.00D in each eye and correctable to 20/20. His
> >> ocular
> >> health was normal and unremarkable. I provided him with an eyeglass
> >> prescription for bifocals to correct his distance vision as well as his
> >> near
> >> vision.
> >> Today Mr. Doe returned to my office. He told me he never bought the
> >> spectacle lenses because he had grown accustomed to his distance vision
> >> and
> >> didn’t feel the correction was necessary for him to function. However,
> >> he
> >> did report that he has been using OTC readers since he did have a little
> >> problem reading small print. Despite his refusal to use the dreaded
> >> minus
> >> lenses, and despite his use of plus reading glasses, Mr. Doe’s vision was
> >> still 20/40 at distance. His subjective refraction was still
> >> about -1.00D
> >> OU. His keratometry readings were virtually identical to the original
> >> readings taken three years ago.
> >> All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone
> >> with
> >> myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> >> what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are.
> >> No
> >> matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and
> >> experience
> >> you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> >> argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> >> Yours truly,
> >> RM
> >> Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> The young man in question was 13 when he started (at -1.5 diopters
> and 20/60), and worked VERY HARD AT IT. This is NOT CASUAL
> and not easy. He read Dr. Stirling Cogates experience using
> a strong plus, and decided to follow his method.
Age 13 (Shawn) and 14 (Colgate) are ideal for developing accommodative
myopia.
> Since he verifies that he had the POTENTIAL to get to 20/20 by
> looking through a negative lens — he knew he had
> to change his refractive status by the amount he mesured.
If he wore -1.50, why didn’t he get worse?
-MT
> All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
> myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
> matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
> you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> Yours truly,
> RM
> Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cn7r1601lak@enews2.newsguy.com>…
> Really. So your prevention technique only works for younger people? That
> ought to give you a clue Otis. Younger people have functioning, and
If it’s for prevention, it’s obvious is for the young!
You being a Democrat, and not an Idiot, should have understood this
promptly.
But your message is full of bad assumptions.
Poor Otis, who is becoming tired, I see, has not even told you that
the plus lenses must be worked out and used for distant vision, if
they can have any impact on the myopia.
Unfortunately, your client has used them for reading, which is a bad
habit, and spoils the sight both for near and far.
No mystery that the client could not get any benefit.
Dear Rishi,
Yes I do get tired of it.
But there was a ray of hope — that was Jacob Raphaelson.
For you it was the ophthalmologist William Bates.
We all have our heros.
After I talked with Raphaelson, I realized that
the person himself (or herself) would have
to work to "control" the situation himself.
(always personally pass the Snellen DMV)
Certainly a great majority will "fight against"
the use of the plus. If that is their
choice, and they are in high school, then
they can expect their refractive-status
to go down by -1/2 diopter per year.
If informed of this — and they do not
mind it — then that is the end of
"prevention" for them.
Raphaelson reported that the forced
wearing of a minus lens on humans
created nearsighedness.
Since I could not reproduce that result
in humans, I felt that it indicated
that the minus lens was not "safe".
So you take a population of primates,
measure their refractive status (both plus
and minus) very clear, does not get
simpler or clearer.
You put a minus lens on 1/2 of them
and measure to see if the refractive
state of the entire population of natural
eyes moves in the direction of the
applied minus lens.
This is fundamental behavior. A built
in characteristic of all natural eyes.
I regret the people who can not face
these objective facts — but it is obvious
that most people wish to "spin" them — to
avoid the obvious conclusion.
So Jacob Raphaelson was right all along.
But it take considerable force-of-character
and to implement the preventive method.
It is not "child’s play", and you can
not "prescribe it", but under the
proper conditions "prevention" can
be successful — under the individual’s
control
In fact, this is the same thing you
say about "Bates". The person must
see the results himself.
With the minus lens the results are "instant".
They impress the public. It is very
hard to talk to a person about the
"secondary" effect at that point.
Only later do they begin to understand
the consequences.
But that is the point of our pleasant
discusion of the preventive alternative.
Best,
Otis
g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150222.4d57c432@posting.google.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cn7r1601lak@enews2.newsguy.com>…
> > Really. So your prevention technique only works for younger people? That
> > ought to give you a clue Otis. Younger people have functioning, and
> If it’s for prevention, it’s obvious is for the young!
> You being a Democrat, and not an Idiot, should have understood this
> promptly.
> But your message is full of bad assumptions.
> Poor Otis, who is becoming tired, I see, has not even told you that
> the plus lenses must be worked out and used for distant vision, if
> they can have any impact on the myopia.
> Unfortunately, your client has used them for reading, which is a bad
> habit, and spoils the sight both for near and far.
> No mystery that the client could not get any benefit.
g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
> > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
> > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
> > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> > Yours truly,
> > RM
> > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
> Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
> Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
Well, I’m a Republican. I could call you a commie collectivist
socialist. I could, but I don’t think I want to lower myself down to
your level.
Quack
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
news:6dbddb9.0411151035.187ee4a2@posting.google.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dear Rishi,
> Yes I do get tired of it.
> But there was a ray of hope — that was Jacob Raphaelson.
> For you it was the ophthalmologist William Bates.
> We all have our heros.
> After I talked with Raphaelson, I realized that
> the person himself (or herself) would have
> to work to "control" the situation himself.
> (always personally pass the Snellen DMV)
> Certainly a great majority will "fight against"
> the use of the plus. If that is their
> choice, and they are in high school, then
> they can expect their refractive-status
> to go down by -1/2 diopter per year.
> If informed of this — and they do not
> mind it — then that is the end of
> "prevention" for them.
> Raphaelson reported that the forced
> wearing of a minus lens on humans
> created nearsighedness.
> Since I could not reproduce that result
> in humans, I felt that it indicated
> that the minus lens was not "safe".
> So you take a population of primates,
> measure their refractive status (both plus
> and minus) very clear, does not get
> simpler or clearer.
> You put a minus lens on 1/2 of them
> and measure to see if the refractive
> state of the entire population of natural
> eyes moves in the direction of the
> applied minus lens.
> This is fundamental behavior. A built
> in characteristic of all natural eyes.
> I regret the people who can not face
> these objective facts — but it is obvious
> that most people wish to "spin" them — to
> avoid the obvious conclusion.
> So Jacob Raphaelson was right all along.
> But it take considerable force-of-character
> and to implement the preventive method.
> It is not "child’s play", and you can
> not "prescribe it", but under the
> proper conditions "prevention" can
> be successful — under the individual’s
> control
> In fact, this is the same thing you
> say about "Bates". The person must
> see the results himself.
> With the minus lens the results are "instant".
> They impress the public. It is very
> hard to talk to a person about the
> "secondary" effect at that point.
> Only later do they begin to understand
> the consequences.
> But that is the point of our pleasant
> discusion of the preventive alternative.
> Best,
> Otis
> g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message
> <news:c72b1499.0411150222.4d57c432@posting.google.com>…
>> "RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message
>> <news:cn7r1601lak@enews2.newsguy.com>…
>> > Really. So your prevention technique only works for younger people?
>> > That
>> > ought to give you a clue Otis. Younger people have functioning, and
>> If it’s for prevention, it’s obvious is for the young!
>> You being a Democrat, and not an Idiot, should have understood this
>> promptly.
>> But your message is full of bad assumptions.
>> Poor Otis, who is becoming tired, I see, has not even told you that
>> the plus lenses must be worked out and used for distant vision, if
>> they can have any impact on the myopia.
>> Unfortunately, your client has used them for reading, which is a bad
>> habit, and spoils the sight both for near and far.
>> No mystery that the client could not get any benefit.
Dear Rishi,
While "Bates", may get "beat up", at least you
and I have the good grace to maintain a sense of humor
about the issues.
When a man is defending a "professional position" you
can expect the type of respons we are getting.
Please remember — there are ODs and MDs who are
willing to take a major step towards effective PREVENTION.
We can only work towards that "better world", even though
it is difficult.
It is hard to see how a "quick-fix" procedure — put in
place 400 year ago — could be based on much that
is scientific. It can be based on the fact that
is works immediately — and the public will reject
the preventive alternative at this time.
But let us "calm down" our language, respect each
other and work as democrats (small "d") to
achieve a better "preventive" solution to
this world wide problem.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
> > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
> > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
> > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> > Yours truly,
> > RM
> > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
> Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
> Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
On 16 Nov 2004 10:15:47 -0800, otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
>Dear Rishi,
>While "Bates", may get "beat up", at least you
>and I have the good grace to maintain a sense of humor
>about the issues.
>When a man is defending a "professional position" you
>can expect the type of respons we are getting.
But in all honesty, you aren’t answering their questions are you? For
the likes of me who is a lay person, it’s very difficult to see how
your view responds to theirs. You just seem to avoid it.
Ann
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>Please remember — there are ODs and MDs who are
>willing to take a major step towards effective PREVENTION.
>We can only work towards that "better world", even though
>it is difficult.
>It is hard to see how a "quick-fix" procedure — put in
>place 400 year ago — could be based on much that
>is scientific. It can be based on the fact that
>is works immediately — and the public will reject
>the preventive alternative at this time.
>But let us "calm down" our language, respect each
>other and work as democrats (small "d") to
>achieve a better "preventive" solution to
>this world wide problem.
>Best,
>Otis
>Engineer
>g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
>> > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
>> > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
>> > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
>> > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
>> > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
>> > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
>> > Yours truly,
>> > RM
>> > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
>> Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
>> Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
Dear Ann,
Subject: The "lay" person.
This issue is of course very serious. Rishi, and
others have attempted to address it in
various ways.
It was clear to me from the statements made
by a professional optometrist that the "lay" public
only "wants" the minus lens — and will reject
the plus.
That is because most people only want an
"instant" solution — and will not tollerate
a discussion that would include — to a large
extent — the person "taking over control"
and using the plus for prevention.
But I believe that a pilot (or person with
the technical insight and motivation) can,
after a tutorial, learn to use the
preventive plus lens correctly.
This sort of analysis and presentation
simply can not be reduced to "medicine",
and can not be done in 15 minutes in
an office.
But I believe it can be done where a
person has the motivation for it.
A solution can be difficult — but possible
based on accurate scientific assesment
of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye,
if the analytical mind of an engineer is involved.
Best,
Otis
Engineer
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
Ann <m…@privacy.net> wrote in message <news:hhtkp0la3v7mp5cphrnagvk2o4q3hebbr8@4ax.com>…
> On 16 Nov 2004 10:15:47 -0800, otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
> >Dear Rishi,
> >While "Bates", may get "beat up", at least you
> >and I have the good grace to maintain a sense of humor
> >about the issues.
> >When a man is defending a "professional position" you
> >can expect the type of respons we are getting.
> But in all honesty, you aren’t answering their questions are you? For
> the likes of me who is a lay person, it’s very difficult to see how
> your view responds to theirs. You just seem to avoid it.
> Ann
> >Please remember — there are ODs and MDs who are
> >willing to take a major step towards effective PREVENTION.
> >We can only work towards that "better world", even though
> >it is difficult.
> >It is hard to see how a "quick-fix" procedure — put in
> >place 400 year ago — could be based on much that
> >is scientific. It can be based on the fact that
> >is works immediately — and the public will reject
> >the preventive alternative at this time.
> >But let us "calm down" our language, respect each
> >other and work as democrats (small "d") to
> >achieve a better "preventive" solution to
> >this world wide problem.
> >Best,
> >Otis
> >Engineer
> >g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
> >> > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
> >> > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> >> > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
> >> > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
> >> > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> >> > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> >> > Yours truly,
> >> > RM
> >> > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
> >> Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
> >> Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
Otis–
This is what Ann said:
> But in all honesty, you aren’t answering their questions are you? For
> the likes of me who is a lay person, it’s very difficult to see how
> your view responds to theirs. You just seem to avoid it.
> Ann
And once again you don’t (read can’t) reply. More obfuscation.
============================================
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote in message
news:6dbddb9.0411162111.450eada@posting.google.com…
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
> Dear Ann,
> Subject: The "lay" person.
> This issue is of course very serious. Rishi, and
> others have attempted to address it in
> various ways.
> It was clear to me from the statements made
> by a professional optometrist that the "lay" public
> only "wants" the minus lens — and will reject
> the plus.
> That is because most people only want an
> "instant" solution — and will not tollerate
> a discussion that would include — to a large
> extent — the person "taking over control"
> and using the plus for prevention.
> But I believe that a pilot (or person with
> the technical insight and motivation) can,
> after a tutorial, learn to use the
> preventive plus lens correctly.
> This sort of analysis and presentation
> simply can not be reduced to "medicine",
> and can not be done in 15 minutes in
> an office.
> But I believe it can be done where a
> person has the motivation for it.
> A solution can be difficult — but possible
> based on accurate scientific assesment
> of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye,
> if the analytical mind of an engineer is involved.
> Best,
> Otis
> Engineer
> Ann <m…@privacy.net> wrote in message
> <news:hhtkp0la3v7mp5cphrnagvk2o4q3hebbr8@4ax.com>…
>> On 16 Nov 2004 10:15:47 -0800, otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
>> >Dear Rishi,
>> >While "Bates", may get "beat up", at least you
>> >and I have the good grace to maintain a sense of humor
>> >about the issues.
>> >When a man is defending a "professional position" you
>> >can expect the type of respons we are getting.
>> But in all honesty, you aren’t answering their questions are you? For
>> the likes of me who is a lay person, it’s very difficult to see how
>> your view responds to theirs. You just seem to avoid it.
>> Ann
>> >Please remember — there are ODs and MDs who are
>> >willing to take a major step towards effective PREVENTION.
>> >We can only work towards that "better world", even though
>> >it is difficult.
>> >It is hard to see how a "quick-fix" procedure — put in
>> >place 400 year ago — could be based on much that
>> >is scientific. It can be based on the fact that
>> >is works immediately — and the public will reject
>> >the preventive alternative at this time.
>> >But let us "calm down" our language, respect each
>> >other and work as democrats (small "d") to
>> >achieve a better "preventive" solution to
>> >this world wide problem.
>> >Best,
>> >Otis
>> >Engineer
>> >g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message
>> ><news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
>> >> > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help
>> >> > anyone with
>> >> > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t
>> >> > care
>> >> > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments
>> >> > are. No
>> >> > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and
>> >> > experience
>> >> > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I
>> >> > will
>> >> > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
>> >> > Yours truly,
>> >> > RM
>> >> > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
>> >> Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
>> >> Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
"Otis Brown" <otisbr…@pa.net> wrote
> A solution can be difficult — but possible
> based on accurate scientific assesment
> of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye,
> if the analytical mind of an engineer is involved.
Shawn and Stirling Colgate reduced their myopia. What’s your analytical
assessment of the mechanism for their improvement?
a) Their eyes become shorter
b) Their corneas became flatter
c) Plus lenses altered the refractive index of the cornea or lens
d) Their crystalline lenses became flatter
An engineer who knows his materials would recognize that a, b, and c don’t
happen and only d) is "under their control."
You make "accurate scientific assessments" but then you say "we don’t need
to know the mechanism."
We’re forced to question your credentials as an engineer.
-MT
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
scorpion5…@yahoo.com (Scorpion) wrote in message <news:f3b81d40.0411151123.501ec5ba@posting.google.com>…
> g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
> > > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
> > > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
> > > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
> > > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
> > > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
> > > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
> > > Yours truly,
> > > RM
> > > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
> > Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
> > Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
> Well, I’m a Republican. I could call you a commie collectivist
> socialist. I could, but I don’t think I want to lower myself down to
> your level.
Excuse me.
On 16 Nov 2004 21:11:47 -0800, otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
>Dear Ann,
>Subject: The "lay" person.
>This issue is of course very serious. Rishi, and
>others have attempted to address it in
>various ways.
>It was clear to me from the statements made
>by a professional optometrist that the "lay" public
>only "wants" the minus lens — and will reject
>the plus.
I hafe spent the last several years wearing a minus lens that was a
dioptre less than I really need and I have seen no improvement in my
vision.
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>That is because most people only want an
>"instant" solution — and will not tollerate
>a discussion that would include — to a large
>extent — the person "taking over control"
>and using the plus for prevention.
>But I believe that a pilot (or person with
>the technical insight and motivation) can,
>after a tutorial, learn to use the
>preventive plus lens correctly.
>This sort of analysis and presentation
>simply can not be reduced to "medicine",
>and can not be done in 15 minutes in
>an office.
>But I believe it can be done where a
>person has the motivation for it.
>A solution can be difficult — but possible
>based on accurate scientific assesment
>of the dynamic behavior of the natural eye,
>if the analytical mind of an engineer is involved.
>Best,
>Otis
>Engineer
>Ann <m…@privacy.net> wrote in message <news:hhtkp0la3v7mp5cphrnagvk2o4q3hebbr8@4ax.com>…
>> On 16 Nov 2004 10:15:47 -0800, otisbr…@pa.net (Otis Brown) wrote:
>> >Dear Rishi,
>> >While "Bates", may get "beat up", at least you
>> >and I have the good grace to maintain a sense of humor
>> >about the issues.
>> >When a man is defending a "professional position" you
>> >can expect the type of respons we are getting.
>> But in all honesty, you aren’t answering their questions are you? For
>> the likes of me who is a lay person, it’s very difficult to see how
>> your view responds to theirs. You just seem to avoid it.
>> Ann
>> >Please remember — there are ODs and MDs who are
>> >willing to take a major step towards effective PREVENTION.
>> >We can only work towards that "better world", even though
>> >it is difficult.
>> >It is hard to see how a "quick-fix" procedure — put in
>> >place 400 year ago — could be based on much that
>> >is scientific. It can be based on the fact that
>> >is works immediately — and the public will reject
>> >the preventive alternative at this time.
>> >But let us "calm down" our language, respect each
>> >other and work as democrats (small "d") to
>> >achieve a better "preventive" solution to
>> >this world wide problem.
>> >Best,
>> >Otis
>> >Engineer
>> >g.ga…@agora.it (Rishi Giovanni Gatti) wrote in message <news:c72b1499.0411150219.1c468674@posting.google.com>…
>> >> > All myopes must be exactly like Mr. Doe. Plus lenses never help anyone with
>> >> > myopia. If you don’t believe it then that’s YOUR PROBLEM. I don’t care
>> >> > what any of you say, or how cogent and reasonable your arguments are. No
>> >> > matter how many of you there are, or what level of training and experience
>> >> > you have, I know better than all of you. I will never listen and I will
>> >> > argue with you until you give up. Because it’s YOUR PROBLEM.
>> >> > Yours truly,
>> >> > RM
>> >> > Scientist, Optometrist, Democrat
>> >> Good that you have called yourself a "Democrat".
>> >> Otherwise most of us would have looked at you as a Fascist.
"Ann" <m…@privacy.net> wrote
> I have spent the last several years wearing a minus lens
> that was a dioptre less than I really need and I have
> seen no improvement in my vision.
That’s because several ingredients are missing, to wit:
>>technical insight and motivation
>>a tutorial
>>analysis and presentation
>>motivation
>>accurate scientific assesment
>>the analytical mind of an engineer
On Wed, 17 Nov 2004 23:39:23 GMT, "Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com>
wrote:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>"Ann" <m…@privacy.net> wrote
>> I have spent the last several years wearing a minus lens
>> that was a dioptre less than I really need and I have
>> seen no improvement in my vision.
>That’s because several ingredients are missing, to wit:
>>>technical insight and motivation
>>>a tutorial
>>>analysis and presentation
>>>motivation
>>>accurate scientific assesment
>>>the analytical mind of an engineer
>:) -MT
Bugger!
Ann
"RM" <priv…@piracy.net> wrote in message <news:cnbtnh01bav@enews4.newsguy.com>…
> Quack
This RM is a polite gentleman indeed.
"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga…@agora.it> wrote
> This RM is a polite gentleman indeed.
Let’s review what Rishi considers "polite"….
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>You are an idiot and deserve a good beat by someone
>stiffer than you.
>The answer it has nothing to do either with your stupidity.
>You are already invaded by your own stupidity and the fact is
> that you are not aware of it.
>I don’t think an idiot like you can teach me anything.
>Really you are a dangerous person.
>Not only stupid but fascist!
>This does not happen with the idiots like you, who in fact
> are afraid that people can cure themselves without having
> anything to do with idiots like you and your friends.
>I am simply shocked by your
>stupidity, so I responded to it.
>This is your problem, you studied too much crap,
>now your intelligence is wasted.
>Now this is simply stupid!
>The problem with you is that you are "simply ignorant",
>Maybe you will discover that you are an idiot?
>Well, you are a real idiot.
>Let’s hope your mother did not a mistake.
>And who is this idiot speaking?
>No, it was the stupid assertion by the writer that
>explained everything, that is your ignorance
>Who is this girl?
>Why doesn’t she stay quiet???
>Please, kindly, be quiet.
>You seem helpless anyway. It will cost you nothing
>but your stupidity, which you ought to renounce
>You are positive in being a silly idiot.
>Your troubles are mental, you have a dis.educated
>mind that cannot interpret anymore the real world
>To debate you need intelligence, a thing you do not
>understand of at all.
>Eastern teachings are far more evolved than your
>little mind can take.
>Dear Charlse, I am sorry for you, but you look like
>an idiot for the things you say.
>To search for causes needs intelligence. Since you are
>a big idiot, from the things you write, you have no hope
>to find any.
>Because of your idiotness, you won’t understand
>why you see pictures.
>And the stupidity of the professionals eyecare
>specialists is really tramatic.
>The girl, if she was more intelligent, could have been
>more successful with the relaxation part of her work.
>Nobody can convince an idiot
>Such idiotic: do you think that if you will stay in bed
>the sun won’t come up?
>Why do you go on and on with these stupidities?
>YOU WERE TO BE BLAMED, YOU AND YOUR
>STUPID AND IDIOTIC CONVICTIONS!!!
>I think you are really stupid.
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message <news:rJbnd.4714$pK6.3695@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>…
> "Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga…@agora.it> wrote
> > This RM is a polite gentleman indeed.
> Let’s review what Rishi considers "polite"….
Well, I admit I was too polite indeed, if you were a little bit more
intelligent to put also the words to which I was responding, I could
now be able to be less polite and restate my own opinions in a
stronger way.
Please, don’t waste such a time in playing with cut and paste!
You are read by the whole world, they may think all doctors are just
like you: go cure your patients!!!
"Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga…@agora.it> wrote
> Well, I admit I was too polite indeed, if you were a little bit more
> intelligent to put also the words to which I was responding, I could
> now be able to be less polite and restate my own opinions in a
> stronger way.
In other words, rude ad-hominem comments are OK if you feel justified.
-MT
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -
>You are an idiot and deserve a good beat by someone
>stiffer than you.
>The answer it has nothing to do either with your stupidity.
>You are already invaded by your own stupidity and the fact is
> that you are not aware of it.
>I don’t think an idiot like you can teach me anything.
>Really you are a dangerous person.
>Not only stupid but fascist!
>This does not happen with the idiots like you, who in fact
> are afraid that people can cure themselves without having
> anything to do with idiots like you and your friends.
>I am simply shocked by your
>stupidity, so I responded to it.
>This is your problem, you studied too much crap,
>now your intelligence is wasted.
>Now this is simply stupid!
>The problem with you is that you are "simply ignorant",
>Maybe you will discover that you are an idiot?
>Well, you are a real idiot.
>Let’s hope your mother did not a mistake.
>And who is this idiot speaking?
>No, it was the stupid assertion by the writer that
>explained everything, that is your ignorance
>Who is this girl?
>Why doesn’t she stay quiet???
>Please, kindly, be quiet.
>You seem helpless anyway. It will cost you nothing
>but your stupidity, which you ought to renounce
>You are positive in being a silly idiot.
>Your troubles are mental, you have a dis.educated
>mind that cannot interpret anymore the real world
>To debate you need intelligence, a thing you do not
>understand of at all.
>Eastern teachings are far more evolved than your
>little mind can take.
>Dear Charlse, I am sorry for you, but you look like
>an idiot for the things you say.
>To search for causes needs intelligence. Since you are
>a big idiot, from the things you write, you have no hope
>to find any.
>Because of your idiotness, you won’t understand
>why you see pictures.
>And the stupidity of the professionals eyecare
>specialists is really tramatic.
>The girl, if she was more intelligent, could have been
>more successful with the relaxation part of her work.
>Nobody can convince an idiot
>Such idiotic: do you think that if you will stay in bed
>the sun won’t come up?
>Why do you go on and on with these stupidities?
>YOU WERE TO BE BLAMED, YOU AND YOUR
>STUPID AND IDIOTIC CONVICTIONS!!!
>I think you are really stupid.
"Mike Tyner" <mty…@mindspring.com> wrote in message <news:Xdund.6205$pK6.257@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>…
> "Rishi Giovanni Gatti" <g.ga…@agora.it> wrote
> > Well, I admit I was too polite indeed, if you were a little bit more
> > intelligent to put also the words to which I was responding, I could
> > now be able to be less polite and restate my own opinions in a
> > stronger way.
> In other words, rude ad-hominem comments are OK if you feel justified.
In other words, being a fascist that cuts and excerpts blocks of
sentences is much more rude and insulting than any possible insult
whatever.
It seems your profession is really a fact of criminality.
Not only in the practice, but in the very way of thinking of your
minds.
Not only you could not offer any cure whatever to the immense trouble
of imperfect sight, but you still insist to destroy any other attempt,
even if greatly successful, to shed more light on the subject.
I was really too polite.
You are real criminals, you rob people of their eyesight, using this
terrible device of the spectacles, which work as a drug, a heavy drug,
inducing dependance, and causing more trouble than those which are
intended to resolve.
Perhaps you still do not see, after many decades of bad practice, what
is the harm you have done to yourself and to other people.
I do not know when you will be able to understand, perhaps never.
What to do.
Being rude to you is nothing compared to what is the rudeness of your
treatments.