To Ted S.

#**123** 09-18-2007, 02:24 PM

Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are
trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically
dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice
can induce double vision in those not working with an eye doctor.

Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any
actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has
developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the
industry
that "foisted these glasses upon her."

You'd do well to ignore them and wait for
responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who
DO also participate in this site.

#**122** 09-18-2007, 02:19 PM

Hi,

- quote -

> You have a quaint use of the term "demonstrate."

Please, what makes you say that?

#**121** 09-18-2007, 02:18 PM

Hi,

- quote -

> It reads a book. This constitutes "thinking for itself". You read
> several books, and that means that you can't?

By the virtue of a mere reading from the book is not of any value.

The value lies in the demonstrations of fact, and truth.
When a person begins the rest methods to cure his sight.

#**120** 09-18-2007, 02:17 PM

On Sep 18, 9:13 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

> I did more than just read a book, any idiot can do that. You see I
> have demonstrated the principles of normal sight, and of cure by rest
> methods.

You have a quaint use of the term "demonstrate."

#**119** 09-18-2007, 02:13 PM

Hi DanAbel,

- quote -

> It reads a book.

I did more than just read a book, any idiot can do that. You see I
have demonstrated the principles of normal sight, and of cure by rest
methods.

However, the instructions to the demonstration of cure is found in the
book. Whereas your textbooks have no such demonstrations, only they
are a mass of false theories and nonsense rubbish, which never cured
no one.

#**118** 09-18-2007, 02:33 AM

On Sep 17, 7:35 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

> Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are
> trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically
> dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice
> can induce double vision in those not working with an eye doctor.
> Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any
> actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has
> developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the
> industry
> that "foisted these glasses upon her."
> You'd do well to ignore them and wait for
> responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who
> DO also participate in this site.

Did you observe Otis shamelessly sucking up to the Bates contingent,
while simultaneously complimenting and dissing Bates at the same time?

#**117** 09-18-2007, 12:35 AM

Sorry. Rishi Giovanni Gatti (Zetsu), Lena102938, and Otis Brown are
trolls who haunt s.m.v. Otis is pathologically
dishonest and actually hurts people. Following his advice
can induce double vision in those not working with an eye doctor.

Lena102938 uses anti-eye doctor rhetoric as a substitute for any
actual information. It seems she now has to wear glasses and has
developed a pathological (and ILLOGICAL) resentment toward the
industry
that "foisted these glasses upon her."

You'd do well to ignore them and wait for
responses from the caring, compassionate eye doctors who
DO also participate in this site.

#**116** 09-17-2007, 11:51 PM

Dear L,

Subject: What Bates suggested.

I certainly heard about Bates when I was young.

At least he kept the door "open" for the concept of
prevention.

I have read Bates extensively. I think he got some
things right -- and some things wrong.

But his contribution is to suggest there is a
better alternative.

But the real "hero" is Dr. Prentice, who was
much more precise and accurate about these issues.

Only the future will resolve the issue of prevention or
avoidance by these SUGGESTED methods.

There are no "magic pills" or quick-fixes -- ever!

Best,

Otis

On Sep 17, 6:11 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
- quote -

> On Sep 17, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
> > I dislike the dumping on Bates. He did the best he could with
> > insufficient information.
> Maybe you dislike the "dumping" on Bates, but I hope you understand
> what led up to it.
> I, too, thought that he did the best he could with insufficient
> information, but I changed my opinion after actually reading some of
> the chapters. Remember that he was controversial even in his day.
> Although he railed against orthodoxy, it isn't clear what lasting
> contribution he left ophthalmology....except controversy.

#**115** 09-17-2007, 11:46 PM

Dan> There is a law of conservation of mass and energy.

Dan> It was disproved.

Otis> Wow! mass can be converted into energy, and
energy into mass. But the coservation law remains
"accepted" in physics.

Otis> I would be interested in your proof that the law
of conversation has been "disproven".

Otis> Also, for Lena, is this true?

Best,

Otis

On Sep 17, 5:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
- quote -

> In article <1189952479.499598.301...[at]19g2000hsx.googlegroups.com> ,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <d...[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 16, 4:38 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > Also it does not matter if I am Rishi's parrot. (although I am not).
> > > Anyhow you are a BIG parrot of your textbooks, are you not?
> > > That is strange! It means you are unable to think for yourself!
> > Textbooks are the distillation of the works of many wise men. Yours
> > is the work of a single man who fooled himself and others.
> It reads a book. This constitutes "thinking for itself". You read
> several books, and that means that you can't?
> I dislike the dumping on Bates. He did the best he could with
> insufficient information.
> There is a law of conservation of mass and energy. It was disproved.
> That doesn't mean that the people who presented the law were stupid,
> they just didn't have the information.

#**114** 09-17-2007, 10:11 PM

On Sep 17, 4:52 pm, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:

- quote -

> I dislike the dumping on Bates. He did the best he could with
> insufficient information.

Maybe you dislike the "dumping" on Bates, but I hope you understand
what led up to it.

I, too, thought that he did the best he could with insufficient
information, but I changed my opinion after actually reading some of
the chapters. Remember that he was controversial even in his day.
Although he railed against orthodoxy, it isn't clear what lasting
contribution he left ophthalmology....except controversy.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode