Yeah, you need a mower for your hair.
It's too difficult to cut because you never shower and it's become
grass like!

So, hand me that mower and I'll give you a nice trim!
Only $5!!

On Apr 1, 5:39*am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
- quote -


Since the "Bates" method has always been a complete failure, those
"gazillion" people won't be helped by a groupie as you. So, here's
your mower.

- quote -

Shut up!

Actually, I know how to write HTML and some PHP, and I already made
numerous websites for my friends so be quiet.

- quote -

Debunked? Where? Please tell!

- quote -

LOL! You think the cure of imperfect sight is irrelevant in
sci.med.VISION? LOL. There's like a gazillion people who come here
because they ARE HAVING VISION PROBLEMS! And the means by which they
can cure these problems is irrelevant? Wow.

- quote -

Read the 1920s book! It's all in there, dear! Well, it's not new to
those of us who have tried it, but for you it could be called 'new',
because you never tried it in the first place.

"Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible[at]hotmail.com> wrote

- quote -

Why not? You do.

- quote -

Next you'll recommend leeches and arsenic. I won't be trying that either.

- quote -

So show us a new method.

- quote -

I don't believe you. I don't believe you've ever seen retinitis pigmentosa,
much less cured it.

- quote -

Better than fraud.

- quote -

If you don't like ridicule, don't be ridiculous.

- quote -

It "scientific" means blindly swallowing debunked crap, no thank you.

-MT

On Mar 31, 5:12*pm, Simon Dean <sjd...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
- quote -


Start a website? That retard couldn't start a lawn mower even if you
started it up for her/him/it.

Zetsu wrote:
- quote -

Please leave... I support the right to free speech, but I do believe in
netiquette, and you just post information that is off topic in
sci.med.vision. Please if you want to post your information, please
setup a website, or your own forum.

I'd be willing to help you get this off the ground provided you and your
ilk stop posting here.

- quote -

Who are you to say 'do some research'?

Did you do any research about the great Dr. Bates method of curing
imperfect sight? Have you even tried it out, even just to demonstrate
a few of the facts?

Look at yourselves before you say 'do some research'.

I mean what a joke!

Yeah, say sorry to 'Master Bev.'

He is Your Grand Master.

The Real Bev knows all!

Commandeth he you heed his words!

On Mar 31, 8:48 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

That makes /some/ sense, but ... if you really think about it ...
you're asking them to listen to YOUR posts which do NOT sound
professional OR authoritative, AND are actually dumb, so ... pot ...
kettle ... black.

- quote -

Nah. You're just whining and pissing in the wind (a la Otis) now.

Go find an optometric college, and petition them to work with you on
the design of a proper study.

Let us know the response.

- quote -

And ... obviously ... even LESS knowledge of "real results."

How's that stat class coming? How about logic? Add that to your
list. Let us know when you get to "after that, therefore because of
that," or "post hoc ergo propter hoc" or "false cause" or "correlation
does not equal causation."

We'll be here.

- quote -

They've never ... ever ... seen any evidence ... that any of the
methods you recommend (tried by thousands and thousands and thousands
of patients each year) ... work.

And your repugnant efforts at ongoing proof by assertion do nothing to
sway them.

Plus, you have a slight .... credibility problem ... that you choose
to ignore.

Sorry, Bev. I'm done tacking on to this thread....

- quote -

YOUR?

YOU own this group?

Really?

Or just trying to put yourself in position of authority?

The readers of this group should think for themselves instead of
listening to a post which sounds very professional and authorititive
but actually, it's dumb!

The Bates method is not 'too good to be true'. It is just a sad and
deplorable situation in which we have the majority that are very
stubborn and inert people who do not want to try out something new and
get a cure. The "authority" (you) makes statements that look very big
and mature but you yourself never even tried the cure of imperfect
sight. Now this authority goes unquestioned by the weak and the
guallables who come to this group. So the sequence continues onwards,
for many years. No one questions, no one tries, no one gets any good
progress.

This is why we do not have yet the real proof of Bates' method
efficacy. To the eye doctors and vision researchers this is what I
have to say: You as the professionals, ought to be putting in all the
efforts to test out new methods. Who am I? Just a little kid who is
still in secondary school! I have no knowledge of the ocular anatomy,
no knowledge of anything in the Eyecare world! It's just me,
completely unprofessional, am learning the cure of imperfect sight!
And getting real results! Without hardly ANY knowledge of its
physiology!

And yet you, as professionals in your own field, unable to give any
real cures to your patients, just give them glasses or cut their
cornea and condemn them to their reliances for the rest of their life!
Surely you should have the greatest motivation for the task of
producing trials and whatnot.

Imagine what you could do, with your power!

We call to you, urge you in this time of greatest need, to direct your
efforts into understanding the cure of imperfect sight! The suffering
of the poor and the weak should end here! The iatrogenic era has been
unnecesarily endured, unquestioningly, for too long

If you try the rest methods first, then write this post saying 'it
doesn't work' then that is slightly more acceptable. But you did not
even try! Not even a little bit! You show not even the SLIGHTEST bit
of curiosity or interest.

You just continue to mock and ridicule a treatment without having any,
not even a small wisp, of understanding on the subject.

Is this scientific, I ask.