 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / November 2004Shawn thanks you for your help to clear to 20/20
Dear Prevention minded friends, Shawn contacted me about 9 months ago, because he was very unhappy about receiving a strong minus lens (-1.5 diopters) and having 20/60 vision. I stated that he should read my site and consider taking personal "ownership" of his vision, and furhter, read Dr. Stirling Colgate's experience with a similar negative refractive state -- for his natural eyes. He then followed the recommendations of Stirling Colgate, and reviewed the extensive "debate" on sci.med.vision concerning his right to a second-opinion. It was a very slow process indeed. Since the natural eye goes "down" at a rate of about -1/2 diopter per year, vision clearing can not develope at a rate much exceeding +1/2 dioper per year. (Although for Shawn, it seems he has exceeded this basic limit.) Here are his commentary now that he has cleared his distant vision to 20/20. He really enjoyed Mikes commentary. LOL. Enjoy, Otis Dear Otis Subject: Comments on stair-case myopia Re: The concept plus-prevention must be destroyed -- Jan-OD I still retain my 20/20 vision, reading 5/5 charecters on the 20/20 line! I've been busy lately which is why i havent been emailing you as often. Things are so so clear, I dont really notice any blur, what a change from last year! I have heard that clearing vision with the plus lens takes longer than for your vision to get worse, I disagree. The fact that I managed to delete two to three years of myopia in about 9 months suggests otherwise. If I had never worn glasses before and had never heard of nearsightedness, I wouldnt notice blurry vision at this point, becuase my vision seems to clear, and its going to get twice as clear in the comming months. Today in class the teacher turned off all the lights and put a projected image on the board. It was a litle blurry but i coulsd make it out, as was the same for alot of other people, naturally the teacher asked me to read some of it, I made it out and read it. The is one instance where i am so happy i have improved my vision with the plus lens. There was one person in particular who sat behind me that wore glasses for nearsightedness who couldn't make out some of the smaller print. The boys started making fun of him because he wore glasses and could barely read it, and they didnt wear glasses and could read it perfectly, it would sound wierd to a person who didn't understand, but i knew why he couldnt see the board, because of stair-case myopia. He had the same problem late in the school year last year and got a stronger pair of glasses, now the visious cycle has started al over again. I have a focal state of about -1 to -3/4D and yet have 20/20 vision, I really must have a good retina! The fact that a -3/4D lens clears me to the 20/10 line can get confusing sometimes, beacuase I can begin to thnk that my vision is better (diopter wise) than it really is. Shawn > Since > the natural eye goes "down" at a rate of > about -1/2 diopter per year, So... at 50 years old I should be about -25.00, right? > I have a focal state of about -1 to -3/4D and yet have 20/20 > vision, I really must have a good retina! The fact that a -3/4D > lens clears me to the 20/10 line can get confusing sometimes, > beacuase I can begin to thnk that my vision is better (diopter > wise) than it really is. I thought you said he went from -1.50 to slightly plus.. But then, all black boxes work the same. -MT Dear Mike, Re: So... at 50 years old I should be about -25.00, right? Mike Tyner OD If you "over-prescribe" a child with by -4 diopters you have indeed "pushed" the young child in that direction. She might not make it down to -25 diopters -- he retina will probably tear loose from the chorioid before she reaches -15 diopters. But as you insist, there is no correlation between the natural eye refractive state and its average visual enviroment. Best, Otis ______________ Dear Shawn, Subject: An excessively strong prescription? How long must this go on? Re: -10 D Prescription by Dr. Bob Smyeth, Optometrist, Dated 8/5/95: Re: Patient: Shanna Brave, Birth Date, 3/2/82: 20/20 -10.0 RE -9.5 LE. There are optometrists like Steve Leung who wish to "change the system". He is very rare. Two people must "change". You have already changed, buy taking scientific research and objective facts seriously, and wise personal actions to: 1. Clear your vision back to 20/20 (after 9 months). 2. To learn more about the devasting effect the minus lens has when it is first-used -- when prevention must be started to be effective. Very few people (or their children) realize what is going to happen when they begin wearing that "first" minus lens. Here is another example of that stair-case myopia that will develop because of it. Also read RM's statement that "effective prevention" is YOUR PROBLEM. This indicates the long-term tragic consequences of that attitude. Here is the real tragedy of "stair-case" myopia -- caused by the excessive over-prescription of a minus lens at the start. You were very lucky to "wake up" to the need for self-imposed prevention. Had some OD done this to you at a younger age -- you would be "stuck" with it for the rest of your life. This is just "background" information. Vision clearing was a great deal of hard work for your -- but now you truly understand what is involved. As before, trust the "quality" of you own mind. Almost no one will listen to anything you say about what you have done. They WILL NOT BELIEVE YOU. But does that matter? No! I will continue to "fight" this battle because I am old enough to take the abuse and insults that are attendant with fighting a struggle for scientific ideas and concepts. Just keep up the good work -- and I will do all that I can to help you. Best, Otis ______________________________________________ AN EXCESSIVELY STRONG PRESCRIPTION? HOW OFTEN DOES THIS HAPPEN -- AND WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS? I have retyped this letter from the original and changed the names. Jeanie's daughter started out (at age six) with 20/50. She received a strong minus lens -- even though 20/50 is acceptable for most children. After years of receiving minus lenses stronger than necessary, she received a lens increase from -6.0 to -10.0 diopters. Jeanie's suspicion and response is described in the following paragraphs. JEANIE BRAVE'S LETTER: Here are copies of my daughter's eye records and prescriptions. You will never know how grateful I am for you and Mr. Severson. When I stop and think of what could have happened to Shanna had I not found you -- my blood starts to boil. I have come to realize that people never question eye doctors as they do medical doctors. We are all at their mercy and do not even know it. You have my permission to give my telephone number to anyone who you feel needs it. Check-up before school -- Shanna received the new contacts on August 5. She puts in -10.0 Diopter and is able to see -- she says one mile down the road. I immediately told her to take them out. After begging my optometrist to please give me information to stabilize her vision, he becomes EXTREMELY UPSET. I then went to the libraries and book stores looking for information but I found only William Bates' name. I then ordered his book. Next I found Mr. Severson and finally you in the back of his book. After reading your books I immediately knew I had the wrong optometrist -- so I nicely asked his assistance in obtaining a -6 Diopter lens for studying. The doctor reluctantly gave them to Shanna, telling us to use them for STUDYING ONLY. I then confirmed the focal status of Shanna's eye's, by assisting her in checking her vision against the eye chart -- both inside and outside. 8/26/95 20/20 -8.0 RE -7.5 LE 8/26/95 20/100 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (Provided for reading) 8/31/95 20/40 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE 9/26/95 20/20 -6.0 RE -6.0 LE (For comparison, see the -10.0 D prescription below) Since she was seeing so well on 9/26/95, I told her to remove her contacts and then come back outside. Without ANYTHING on she stood 20 feet away and could focus on the 20/70 and 20/50 line for about 2 or 3 seconds -- then she said it would flash or float away. -10 D Prescription by Dr. Bob Smyeth, Optometrist, Dated 8/5/95: Patient: Shanna Brave, Birth Date, 3/2/82: 20/20 -10.0 RE -9.5 LE. In subsequent conversations with Jeanie, she stated that her nine year-old son was just starting into nearsightedness, and that she would do everything in her power to help her son with the proper use of the plus lens -- to avoid the catastrophic situation that had developed with her daughter. Jeanie wondered why this knowledge is not made generally available to the parents of young children. ____________________________________________ COMMENTARY FROM ABOUT THIS "ATTITUDE" I can acknowledge that most people have scant interest in true-prevention at the threshold -- and lack to motivation to do the work "correctly". But I can not "take" RM who declares the following: A Statement by RM-Optometrist: Its YOUR PROBLEM. RM > 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. Optometrist, RM RM > Yours truly, RM, Scientist, Optometrist [Tragically I have the sense that these OD-Boards are staffed by optometrists who explicitly hold or maintain RM's point-of-view. Or as a minimum, an OD of this nature on a board can "black ball" any OD who would seek to "change the system". OSB] I guess "our problem" is this man's total, self-imposed ignorance of the dynamic nature of the fundamental eye. I regret the consequences for everyone who enters his office and gets that "first" strong minus lens -- and NO DISCUSSION of the second-opinion. We all owe a person at least a "fighting chance" at prevention -- even if he turns it down. Obviously RM does not believe you have any "rights" at all, nor does he take any responsibility for the long-term effect of a minus lens on the refractive status of the natural eye. > > Since > > the natural eye goes "down" at a rate of [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > -MT > Re: So... at 50 years old I should be about -25.00, right? > > If you "over-prescribe" a child with by -4 diopters > you have indeed "pushed" the young child in that direction. But you didn't say that. You said "the natural eye goes down 1/2 diopter per year." Stand behind the statements you make or don't make them. > She might not make it down to -25 diopters -- he retina > will probably tear loose from the chorioid before she > reaches -15 diopters. That's one reason we don't overprescribe young children. If your doctor quadruples your digitalis, you die. So don't use digitalis? > But as you insist, there is no correlation between the > natural eye refractive state and its average visual enviroment. Every time you say that, you're lying. I made no such statement. I said there is a minor correlation between working distance and myopia. That's the only conclusion supported by vision science literature. 25 diopter myopes don't get that way because they wear glasses. -MT Dear Mike, Subject: Over-prescription by -4 diopters. Re: That's one reason we don't overprescribe young children. If your doctor quadruples your digitalis, you die. So don't use digitalis?, Mike Tyner OD You state that "you" don't over-prescribe the minus lens. Then please explain what "Dr" Smyth did with this 13 year-old child. Since you recognize the "bad" effect of this "over presciption", "Quadruples digitalis -- you die". How about, "quadruples your minus lens -- you get a detached retina and go blind -- in later life". Very similar. But I forgot -- you don't take any responsibility for any of this. I thinks RM said that if you wish to take scientific truth correctly, and protect your distant vision for life -- then you will have to do is yourself -- because, as he said that is YOUR PROBLEM. And when this young child gets a detached retina in later life -- then that is HER PROBLEM. Thanks for your compassionate and caring mind. Best, Otis Engineer > > Re: So... at 50 years old I should be about -25.00, right? > > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > -MT > You state that "you" don't over-prescribe the minus lens. Then > please explain what "Dr" Smyth did with this 13 year-old child. Because mistakes happen. Do you suppose all -4 myopes are overprescribed? Do you want me to take responsibility for Dr. Smyth's mistake? > I thinks RM said that if you wish to take scientific truth > correctly, and protect your distant vision for life -- then > you will have to do is yourself -- because, as he said > that is YOUR PROBLEM. You believe primates emmetropize throughout their entire lives. They don't. -MT > > You state that "you" don't over-prescribe the minus lens. Then > > please explain what "Dr" Smyth did with this 13 year-old child. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > -MT And for any truly caring and understanding people who might be reading this thread: 1. We OD's take extra special care to NOT over prescribe lenses for children---either minus or plus, or when not of real-world value. We certainly have the tools and knowledge to do that. I'd think most of us choose to prescribe only when there is clear benefit---like seeing clearly so the child can learn to read and understand their world. 2. There is, on the other hand, the fact that far too many children DO NOT get adequate vision care and suffer the consequences of learning disabilities/difficulties and more. I still think there should be a daily Otis disclaimer posted so that we can move on from his useless diatribe. --Larry > I still think there should be a daily Otis disclaimer posted so that we > can move on from his useless diatribe. > > --Larry ====== I agree totally! I am tired of this loud-mouthed moron posting BS over this newsgroup. A week ago I was working up such a disclaimer post after Otis' had thoroughly gotten under my skin. I will post my last draft here and now for comments by others. Please chime in everyone with comments, additions, etc. I signed this draft myself only because I didn't want to speak for others. It would be more effective if it was signed in some way that indicated the true number of eye care professionals that are fed up with Otis. ------ DRAFT POST FOLLOWS: ----- I am automatically posting this reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a certain person named "Otis". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nill. He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness) prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even been disproven by controlled scientific studies. I do not mean to suppress the opinions of anyone. I only mean to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. Please take the remarks made by Otis with a grain of salt. RM Ph.D. O.D. Dear RM, I am curious. What exactly was your Ph.D. Dissertation about, and from what college did you receive it? In general, new ideas, new concepts in science recive considerable opposition. If you can supply evidence that the natural eye is not a sophisticated control system, I would like to see it. i.e., on an "input" versus "ouptut" demonstrate that the natrual eye does NOT CHANGE its refractive status -- as the visual enviroment is changed. Best, Otis > > I still think there should be a daily Otis disclaimer posted so that we > > can move on from his useless diatribe. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > RM > Ph.D. O.D. > In general, new ideas, new concepts in science > recive considerable opposition. If you can > supply evidence that the natural eye is > not a sophisticated control system, > I would like to see it. If you can supply evidence that plus lenses are a new concept for treating myopia, I would like to see it. > I am curious. What exactly was your > Ph.D. Dissertation about, and from > what college did you receive it? I find it surprising that you would want to compare credentials. -MT Dear Mike, So far, we have no idea who "RM" is. I find that Dr. Stirling Coltate Ph.D. is more credible than the initials "RM" who claims to have a Ph.D. -- in something. Perhaps city planning? Best, Otis > > In general, new ideas, new concepts in science > > recive considerable opposition. If you can [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > -MT > I find that Dr. Stirling Coltate Ph.D. is > more credible than the initials "RM" who > claims to have a Ph.D. -- in something. > Perhaps city planning? Perhaps it isn't obvious to you, but it's evident to us that RM has graduate training in vision science. I would find "engineer" adequate credentials if the "engineer" showed some understanding of accommodative reflexes, and some experience with cyclopentolate. >> If you can supply evidence that plus lenses are a new concept for >> treating >> myopia, I would like to see it. Not responding again, I see. -MT Congratulations, dear readers. January 4, 2005 will mark the two year anniversary of the Otis Story. That's right! You've been feeding the swollen head of this being for two years and over one thousand five hundred posts to this newsgroup. Of course he's become so much more obvious in the last year where he posted his "the plus" message nearly 900 times. 900 times! In one year! And over 50% of those messages contained at least in part *exactly the same* text. WOW. Google IS fun! MY original proposal: One of us gets to post one reply to him, *just one*, each time he posts and this reply being quite brief: ---------------- subject: Please ignore Otis Brown postings text: Otis Brown posts his ridiculous, unsupported theory to this newsgroup over and over again, day after day. Over a thousand times thus far. Numerous doctor practitioners and vision scientists have clearly and precisely debunked his argument, yet he persists in trying to attract the gullible. Please do not reply. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which appears on Mondays for information on how to filter out his posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussion in this forum. Thank you for your cooperation and understanding. ---------------- Now lets' PLEASE get on with substantive discussion. Please. --Larry LarryDoc <larrydoc@nospam.yahoodotcom> wrote in news:larrydoc- 1C9073.11474028112004@news.verizon.net: > Congratulations, dear readers. January 4, 2005 will mark the two year > anniversary of the Otis Story. That's right! You've been feeding the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > WOW. Google IS fun! I agree with you for the most part, Larry. Please also remember that I long ago posed the question of whether or not "Otis" was just a program. However, myopia prevention is a concept worthy of discussion and debate. Within his meandering and repetitiveness, Otis has pushed all of the traditional "hot buttons." If we all weren't sincerely interested in the prevention of myopia, none of would have wasted so much bandwidth. But, it's one thing to get all the cards out on the table, but quite another to be dealing from the bottom of the deck. Otis may be "true" to his cause, but he engages in quite a bit of intellectual dishonesty to defend it. DrG Dear Larry, Subject: Thanks for your rearch. Re: Two years discussing true-prevention. Re: 400 year of minus lens quick-fix and ignoring objective scientific facts. Re: OD advocacy for prevention over the last 100 years. As you know, I agree that prevention is "difficult" but possible. It takes a good mind, and strong persistance, and a willingness for the person to read his own eye-chart and verify the success of his work. You totally ignore the fact that 93 percent of the medical students are now myopic. Incredible -- and you think that this is their "bad heredity" and that there is no correlation between the refractive state of the natural eye -- and its average visual environment? How blind can you be. Fortunatly some ODs recognize the need for prevention -- and have their own childern wearing the plus at the threshold. They are few -- but their numbers will grow. www.chinamyopia.org Best, Otis __________ > Congratulations, dear readers. January 4, 2005 will mark the two year > anniversary of the Otis Story. That's right! You've been feeding the [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > > --Larry Otis, I do not feel compelled to be drawn down into the gutter with you in some kind of a discussion of who has the best academic credentials. You wouldn't want to go there anyway. I remain anonymous because I do not wish to be spam-mailed and contacted by crackpots like yourself, Rishi, and some of the other trolls who lurk around newsgroups. Suffice it to say I have a Ph.D. from a Big 10 university with a graduate/postdoctoral experience in cellular and molecular biology of vision. The better question is what are your credentials Otis "the engineer". What academic training or what clinical experience qualifies you to give advice about vision care? And don't start waxing poetic about some story you read about the printer's son or some such nonsense. You are a troll Otis. As you can tell from the discussion in this newsgroup I am not the only one who argues against your innane concepts. Your only "allies" are freaks like Rishi who can't write a complete sentence and who resort to personal insults. Go design a new vacuum cleaner. ----------------------- > Dear Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >> >> -MT > Otis, > I do not feel compelled to be drawn down into the gutter with you in some [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Go design a new vacuum cleaner. It does't matter how good your credentials might be to a person such as Otis. In his mind he thinks it's only his way or no way. He simply reiterates the same mantra over and over again, similar to a religious zealot. Otis never answers in a clear direct response hoping that his double speak will confuse a lay person to such an extent that the reader becomes disoriented/numbed. To me it's pointless to try to engage Otis (my hats off especially to Mike, Larry, dr. G et al for trying). You could say that the earth is round and Otis would retort that according to the "natural eye" in a "dynamic setting" in a box camera model in newborn chicks that there are scientists that dispute this statement (but written in a 5 thousand word response). A treatment/therapy such as this that resorts to needing "proper motivation" in order for it to be successful should raise a red flag to anyone with common sense. It makes a very convenient back door when it doesn't work because " you didn't have the proper motivation". If all of this actually worked, there shouldn't have be any motivation involved in doing so. frank Well then, would you agree with the statement: Otis is a nut? DrG >> Otis, >> I do not feel compelled to be drawn down into the gutter with you in [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > frank > I do not mean to suppress the opinions of anyone. I only mean to forewarn > anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. Please take > the remarks made by Otis with a grain of salt. > > RM > Ph.D. O.D. Your text is just ridiculous. You seem to ignore the impressive amount of data that your patient tell you every day. They feel uncomfortable with your treatments. Not only they suffer the grievance of glasses, but still have no relief even with your drugs and other things you provide them. I see many people at shows and fairs, and most of them, if not the totality, are totally dissatisfied by your approach and conduct about the menace of imperfect sight. Not to mention those who have had the unluck of being operated upon for serious diseases like glaucoma, detachment of the retina, or other things like that, for which you just do simple butchery ona poor eye which is suffering. The amount of these data that your patient tell you daily seems not to touch you even on the surface of your silly consciousness. And you still feel the need to put a disclaimer against the effort of an old man like Otis who is simply carrying out his own, and that of many others, suggestion for finding a sort of cure or help who really can give some benefit without glasses. You say you have Ph.D., O.D., but in fact all these titles have given you only a small authority for the gullible. Intelligent people do not follow you anymore. For what? For having just another pair of stupid glasses to wear? Or just for having some other dangerous drug to put into the eyes? Or just for being scolded and injured by your own incompetence and fear? Your urge to put such a disclaimer is a great evidence of your impotence. You as a profession are a rotten thing. A stubborn reminiscence of the past. The future is more on Otis' side, not on yours. The future is with the individual and self-determination. In the future, blood-suckers like you will be simply withered away. In the future, people will use their own eyes instead to follow your ignorant directions, a danger not only for the eyes but for the general health and peace of mind. >> I still think there should be a daily Otis disclaimer posted so that we >> can move on from his useless diatribe. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare >training is nill. Just a typo correction from a pedant... nil with one L and not nill with two Ls. Ann >He is a proponent of a myopia (i.e. nearsightedness) >prevention technique that is unproven at best, and has in some aspects even [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >RM >Ph.D. O.D. > I still think there should be a daily Otis disclaimer posted so that we > can move on from his useless diatribe. I can't agree more with this. In fact, this disclaimer should be followed up to each and every Otis post. Allen (A pilot who gladly appreciates his minus lenses to see 20/20). > (A pilot who gladly appreciates his minus lenses to see 20/20). And declares to the world how much stupid he is. What do you see without your glasses? What happens if you lose it or break it? What kind of solution is your minus lenses??? You answer frankly, don't be biased. Ask a young boy with imperfect sight, to choose if he wants to be cured without or with the glasses. What will the intelligent boy answer? What about your eyes resenting the glasses when first imposed on them? What about sun-discomfort, or light discomfort? What about increasing prescription? What about headaches? What about other impending symptoms? Please be serious and scientific in your answers. > And declares to the world how much stupid he is. Oh hell, let me feed the trolls..... > What do you see without your glasses? Blur > What happens if you lose it or break it? I wear contacts. If they give me a problem, I have eyeglasses as backup. > What kind of solution is your minus lenses??? Clear vision > You answer frankly, don't be biased. Hopefully these answers are short and to the point. > What about your eyes resenting the glasses when first imposed on them? No resentment at all, in fact, I enjoy the sharp and clear vision. No medical problems with my eyes. > What about sun-discomfort, or light discomfort? Hmmm, never had that, and when I fly in full sun, that is what my baseball cap is for. > What about increasing prescription? Stable as a table. No increase in 20 years. -3.75 in one eye and -1.75 in the other. > What about headaches? Zilch, no headaches to report. > What about other impending symptoms? Can't answer as I am healthy, nothing impending. I can read with or without my glasses. No accomodation problems whatsoever. Allen > > And declares to the world how much stupid he is. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Blur Good! > > What happens if you lose it or break it? > > I wear contacts. If they give me a problem, I have eyeglasses as backup. Very good indeed. you wear contacts and are comfortable? In wind? In sun? In darkness? wow, a superman, then why you see blur without them? Given these facts, you should be very healthy indeed with no vision troubles!!1 > > What kind of solution is your minus lenses??? > > Clear vision It is not. > > What about your eyes resenting the glasses when first imposed on them? > > No resentment at all, in fact, I enjoy the sharp and clear vision. No > medical problems with my eyes. Please be true to yourself. What was your first prescription twenty years ago? Don't say it is stayed the same oterhwise the OD here will start believing you are a great cheat. > > What about sun-discomfort, or light discomfort? > > Hmmm, never had that, and when I fly in full sun, that is what my baseball > cap is for. So you feel discomfort. Why being shy about it? Say you cannot fly in the sun without discomfort. Say it. You need a baseball cap. > > What about increasing prescription? > > Stable as a table. No increase in 20 years. -3.75 in one eye and -1.75 in > the other. Previous prescrptions, please. > > What about headaches? > > Zilch, no headaches to report. You liar. > > What about other impending symptoms? > > Can't answer as I am healthy, nothing impending. I can read with or > without my glasses. No accomodation problems whatsoever. Good. >Dear Prevention minded friends, > >Shawn contacted me about 9 months ago, because he >was very unhappy about receiving a strong minus lens >(-1.5 diopters) and having 20/60 vision. I could have sworn I've read this post before... and before.. and before... it's becoming a bit like spam now. Ann > >Dear Prevention minded friends, > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Ann But why don't you try to cure yourself instead of complaining ever and ever? Isn't this a free forum??? Who are you to judge what one can say or say not??? Perhaps you are a fascist. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.