> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvincible[at]hotmail.com> wrote
> > His findings with the retinoscope also stand the tests of experience.
> > People who have discarded their glasses and begin to cure their poor
> > eyesight notice dramatic changes in their quality of vision,
> This is crap. It only happens in your head, which as we know is full of
> crap.
> > on their emotional state and other factors. This is something that
> > will often vary little if glasses are worn, or go unnoticed if the
> > assumption is held that the quality of vision does not change both for
> > the worse and for the better depending on how the mind is being used.
> Believing this is "scientific" proves that your head is full of crap.
> > The variability of the quality of vision has become so obvious to such
> > people (including myself) that there is no need to question Bates's
> > accuracy with the retinoscope.
> Again you've swallowed crap, a cargo-cult explanation for accommodation.
> > The fact should be obvious to anyone
> > with perfect sight, as nobody with perfect sight has perfect sight all
> > of the time. - Kiesling
> It should be obvious to you that this is crap.
> Since it isn't, I'll continue pointing it out to you whenever crap leaks
> from your head. Should happen again, any moment now.

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

> It's also unlikely that the angle subtended by a pupil at six feet is as
> large as the angle subtended at two feet.
> > It is also a notable point that, after Dr. Bates cured himself of
> > presbyopia, he would most likely have secured a very keen level of
> > vision, and therefore would be able to perform feats with the
> > instrument that required great precision and skill, otherwise not
> > possible.
> It's also a notable point that you're full of crap. You won't convince any
> living eye doctor that Bates cured himself of presbyopia. You believing it
> only proves that you swallow crap.

> On Apr 15, 12:57 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > . It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
> bull$hit. you are just blathering a bunch of unproven mythology that
> has little to no basis in fact.
> anyone who is interested in Bates can find out about it without your
> help. you simply like to flit around this newsgroup like some kind of
> harpy who harasses everyone with stupid quotes from stupid books, or
> posing stupid questions that seem interesting to no one but you.
> you are sick. the only one who cares about what you are writing about
> is you! go away, like your hero troll friend Gatti did.

> . It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.

> "Zetsu" <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote
> > Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
> > burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.
> Is THAT what you think you're doing?

> That twenty years would've been better spent in curing your vision
> defect with the rest methods Have you learned anything in that 20
> years of how to CURE yourself?

> Well, I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything, so there is no
> burden on me. It's just stirring up curiosity into the Bates System.

> I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research

> On Apr 15, 9:35 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > > This is not crap!
> > > Well, Mike ....
> > > He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
> > It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
> > All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
> > Any 3 year old can manage to do that...
> Sorry, but ... just like Otis, you seem to lack the really rudimentary
> understanding that the burden of proof is on you.
> I've done 20+ years of ophthalmologic research, using an incredible
> variety of sources. Nothing but your claims backs up your claims, and
> they fall apart under even minimal scrutiny by impartial observers
> with even a hint of knowledge about eyes and sight.
> Sorry. The burden is yours.

> On 15 Apr, 17:32, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Apr 15, 9:14 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > > This is not crap!
> > Well, Mike ....
> > He/she/it does proffer a compelling argument there [rolleyes].
> It's not like Mike is offering any more of a compelling argument!
> All he's saying is 'this is crap, that's crap, you're full of crap'.
> Any 3 year old can manage to do that...