 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / February 2005Perfect Sight a matter of spontaneous understanding
Please, note that Perfect Sight has nothing to do with PLUS LENSES or any other type of lenses usage. The theory which our friend Otis - an old man who wears thick glasses and does not comprehend at all what normal vision is - so strongly advices is completely wrong. Please do not reply to this message. So are you saying that if I had spontaneously grasped the functioning of all parts of the eyeball as well as how my brain processes visual signals, instead of having to learn this information from other people who dissect eyeballs and brains for a living, my vision would miraculously correct itself to 20/20? Please, I asked to not reply to this message. Are you dumb? > Please, I asked to not reply to this message. > > Are you dumb? Please, many people have asked you to go away and stop posting here. Why do you think you can ignore them and then expect to control what other people post?  SignatureDan Abel Sonoma State University AIS dabel@sonic.net Are you a fascist to ask a person to go away? Really the use of glasses and butchery treatments destroy intelligence and bring on stupidity. Please, ignore my posts. Stay in your stupidity and let me do my own thing. f.ck off. Hmmm. Your thing is the promulgation of an unproven theory which when you are questioned you are unable to defend. Are you licensed to operate an espresso machine? If so such licensure does not transfer to the practice of quackery. Go feed your ducks. Neither dumb nor ignorant. I notice you didn't actually answer my question, so possibly you're having trouble reading it. Allow me to rephrase: If, when I was a 4-year old child I had miraculously grasped the gestalt of human human visual input processing would I now have perfect vision instead of the "GEEZUS CHRIST LADY DIDN'T YOU SEE THAT 777??" vision I have today when my glasses aren't on my face? >Please, I asked to not reply to this message. > >Are you dumb? > If, when I was a 4-year old child I had miraculously grasped the > gestalt of human human visual input processing would I now have > perfect vision instead of the "GEEZUS CHRIST LADY DIDN'T YOU SEE THAT > 777??" vision I have today when my glasses aren't on my face? I recognize you were mde a victim of wrong and surpassed treatments. I'm sorry for you. I was a victim myself in 1982 at 13 years. It took to me 9 years of trouble and then another ten to understand better. You are now fortunate to have met me. But I do not think that your fortune can overcome your deep stupidity. And yet another non-answer. Want to make it a hat trick? So you're saying, essentially, that you don't have a clue, don't have a program, and don't have anything even remotely intelligent to say about this so-called "spontaneous sight correction" you've been touting. Now who's stupid? You are stupid because you do not know of what I al talking, you dumb idiot. Study the facts: remove the glasses for one week and then see what is your improvement. Just get a Snellen chart and read it every day for few minutes at various distances and in different light conditions. Then you will have the right to say something about the Spontaneous Understanding of Perfect Sight. I have spoken of UNDERSTANDING. You do not seem to manifest any of it. Please, f.ck off and get lost! >You are stupid because you do not know of what I al talking, you dumb >idiot. > >Study the facts: remove the glasses for one week and then see what is >your improvement. The only "improvement" that comes with removal of my glasses is that I get a weight off my face. See 777 comment of earlier post. >Just get a Snellen chart and read it every day for few minutes at >various distances and in different light conditions. I can in fact read a snellen chart - with my glasses on my face. >Then you will have the right to say something about the Spontaneous >Understanding of Perfect Sight. > >I have spoken of UNDERSTANDING. > >You do not seem to manifest any of it. And you don't seem to grasp that you still haven't answered my question. Then again, the play on words and subtle sarcasm may be lost on a non-native speaker of English. [See, I'm giving you credit for being ignorant.] >Please, f.ck off and get lost! No can do, buster. I'm one of those liberated women who know how to read a manp and who isn't afraid to stop and ask for directions. Also, I doubt you could afford me, vis-a-vis the first recommended action. > >Just get a Snellen chart and read it every day for few minutes at > >various distances and in different light conditions. > > I can in fact read a snellen chart - with my glasses on my face. You have to read it without glasses, why do you insist to prove yourself as a GREAT DUMB IDIOTIC BUFOON??? > And you don't seem to grasp that you still haven't answered my > question. Then again, the play on words and subtle sarcasm may be > lost on a non-native speaker of English. [See, I'm giving you credit > for being ignorant.] You are the great ignorant and stupid man. > No can do, buster. I'm one of those liberated women who know how to > read a manp and who isn't afraid to stop and ask for directions. Sorry, I did not know you were a lady. Excuse me for my foul language. Now, please, get lost, I am not interested to talk with stupid ladies as well. > Also, I doubt you could afford me, vis-a-vis the first recommended > action. You remove the glasses then we will see. Such is your stupidity: can't you see that you are helpless? If you take off your glasses and read a Snellen chart at various distances everyday you will eventually memorize it. That is Rishi's proof of a cure. Then he will recommend sungazing which will really improve your acuity (=sarcasm. Don't do it please)! -------------- >>You are stupid because you do not know of what I al talking, you dumb >>idiot. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Also, I doubt you could afford me, vis-a-vis the first recommended > action. >So are you saying that if I had spontaneously grasped the functioning >of all parts of the eyeball as well as how my brain processes visual >signals, instead of having to learn this information from other people >who dissect eyeballs and brains for a living, my vision would >miraculously correct itself to 20/20? Not miraculously, it's simply how vision is. The only thing that you must grasp is this: learn to see best where you are looking and let go of the things you are not directly regarding. When you try to see equally well the point you are directly regading and something else, your vision becomes impefect. When you learn how to see best where you are looking you'll be cured. For example: this very letter O you should look one part at a time and realize that the part of the letter that you are looking at is blacker than the rest. If you try to see the O equally well, you are trying to do the impossible and trying to do the impossible is a strain and strain to see is the cause of imperfect sight. -- "It is not faith that cures, but a proper use of the eyes." Dear Rishi, Subject: Politics make strange bed-fellows This is interesting. So now you SUPPORT the ODs on this site who are "opposed" to the use of the plus for prevention. And in fact, if they attempted to offer YOU the use of the plus (for prevention) you would sue them! They have every right to point this fact out to us -- as the real reason they cna not offer the plus to the general public. In fact I understand their motives and insightes on this subject. This is a good reason why ODs and MDs have attempted to "slow down" the use of the minus -- but they can not stop it. But, my friend -- enjoy. We present our ideas and concepts -- and even "hopes" for the future. Let us continue this work as freinds with the hope of a better future for all of us -- and our childrens. Best, Otis Engineer Otis I am not interested in plus because it is a wrong method: once you know the truth about vision, you will discard the wrong treatments. Please don't be bothered, forget. > So now you SUPPORT the > ODs on this site who are > "opposed" to the use of > the plus for prevention. You never listen troll. Noone here opposes the use of plus for prevention. We just won't recommend it because it has been shown not to be effective. Anyone who wants to use plus can do so of their own accord, it won't hurt them. We just won't give them false hope like you will because we could be held accountable if it doesn't work. > And in fact, if they attempted to > offer YOU the use of the plus > (for prevention) you would sue them! Don't piss Rishi off-- he's your only ally here numbskull. > This is a good reason why ODs > and MDs have attempted to > "slow down" the use of the minus -- but > they can not stop it. Yes-- at our last conspiracy meeting in Jamaica we agreed that we need to slow down the use of the wretched minus lens because some smart rebels like yourself were figuring out what we were doing! > Let us continue this work as freinds > with the hope of a better future > for all of us -- and our childrens. How romantic! You fool! http://www.geocities.com/neil0502/Oda_May_Brown.html?1107470227575 RM, Interesting! The "standard method" of the last 400 years has been the minus lens. If you love it -- then use it. If you wish to better-understand the behavior of the natural and fundamental eye then I suggest the person himself review direct experimental data where you place a minus lens on a poulation of eye. In terms of funamental science (i.e., direct measurement, YOUR MEASUREMENTS, you will find that the refractive status of the eyes with a minus lens will move "down" relative to the control group. If you don't believe this -- then re-do the experiment. If you still don't blieve this -- then you are not fucntioning on an engineering-scientific level. RM (and OD I believe) can state that the general public wants their eyes "made sharp" instantly -- and will not tollerate ANY discussion about prevention. And in a way -- I agree with him. Most people lack the motivation to use the plus "correctly". But the advocacy still exists as "the second opinion" and as stated by Theodore Grosvenor and Francis Young (just talked to him). All intellectual "struggles" create this type of "attitude". It is important, however, that you face facts -- as stated above -- and draw your own scientific conclusions about the dynamic nature of the primate eye. Please remember these are frendly and open discussions about alternatives -- that might be of interest to you. Best, Otis Engineer This posting is an automatic reply to any sci.med.vision newsgroup thread that is receiving comments from a person named "Otis", "Otis Brown", "otisbrown@pa.net" or "Otis, Engineer". Otis is not an expert in any field of vision. His medical and eyecare training is nil. He is a proponent of a myopia prevention technique that is unproven. In addition, Otis continually misquotes people in his posts. He drops the names of doctors whom he falsely claims to be associated with. He has been caught in out-and-out lies. He has given people incorrect medical advise. Sadly, his behavior suggests he may have psychological problems that compel him to argue against people just for the sake of causing an argument. Otis is what is known in internet newsgroup lingo as a "troll". Do not reply to his postings-- it just takes up bandwidth and storage space that should be reserved for meaningful topics. It also just fulfils his sick psychological needs. No one means to suppress the honest opinions of others. This message is only meant to forewarn anyone who might misconstrue Otis as a trained eyecare expert. For anyone who is interested in understanding the current state of scientific/medical research on myopia prevention, I offer the following link: http://annals.edu.sg/pdf200401/V33N1p4.pdf. If you have other topics you wish to discuss, there are experts here who will usually help you. Don't waste your time with Otis. Please see the weekly posting "welcome to sci.med.vision" which usually appears on Mondays, for information on how to filter out Otis' posts so that you may be able to participate in worthwhile discussions in this forum. > If you wish to better-understand the behavior of the > natural and fundamental eye then I suggest the > person himself review direct experimental data > where you place a minus lens on a poulation > of eye. But you must IGNORE any data on humans wearing neutralizing correction. Consider ONLY what happens in animal studies using vastly inappropriate lenses. -MT Hi, My wife and I are gibbons. Our son is a nine year-old gibbon--that's an ape, remember, not a monkey. Lately, I've noticed that he must hold the books very close to his face when reading, and has consistently had to sit in the front row in classrooms to read the chalkboard. I'm worried that he might be developing primate myopia. His p.d. is only 12cm, which -- I think -- makes him a poor candidate for eyeglasses, and his hands are particularly rough and hairy, perhaps making him a poor candidate for contact lenses. Along with this is the stigma of being a fourth grader who needs corrective lenses which, I fear, may only get worse as he gets into adolescence. Offsetting that, however, is the fact that we're a very arboreal family. We're tree-swingers. Always have been. Probably always will be. I want to make sure little Gib retains his depth perception. Quite important, dont'cha know ;-) Does anybody know a way that I can keep my little monkey (I know: he's really /not/ a monkey, but that's a term of endearment his mother and me use for him!) from progressively becoming more nearsighted? TIA! > Consider ONLY what happens in animal studies using vastly inappropriate > lenses. > > -MT All lenses are inappropriate. By definition of "lens". |
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.