You do?  Wow.  You've REALLY lost it!

Otis: you've taken all of this to a new level.  I've already told you
that it's my belief that YOU hurt people, and that--if and where
appropriate--I would invoke any relevant authorities to prevent you
from hurting people further.

I have never threatened you, nor any member of your family (these are
people that YOU have made public throughout the last few years, not
me).

Feel free to present anything that I have EVER said or written to any
authorities that you care to.  I've done nothing illegal and WILL DO
nothing illegal.  Rather, I WILL turn the law against you, if
appropriate.

(Quick: this one's a judgment call....)

ps: your spellchecker still needs a good talking to

pps: I thought you were leaving??

OK.

Why do you fear for their safety if he has no contact with them?

I'm sorry about that.  I don't see that Neil has any dangerous intent,
but still, you should take steps if you have these fears.  The first
would be to stop all posting to this group.  If you stop posting, he
will no longer have any interest in you.

go away Otis.  your family is not safe.

i too fear for your family.  you should break off all contact in this
newsgroup and try not to provoke that madman Neil.  good luck.

From:  Otis

Subject: Neil Brooks' Bizzare Behavior.

Keith> If you are concerned for my uncle's health then I thank you
      for your concern.

Brooks> Sorry, but -- in the last half-hour your uncle has posted
    that I have "threatened [his] family' and that he fears for
    his safety.

[Comment:  Neil sent a letter my wife -- who stated that she was
      "concerned" and afraid of this man.  I am also -- enough to
      avoid him at all cost.  His actions have been bizzare -- at
      best.  My wife expressed fear about this anonymous letter.
      I agree with her.  Further, Neil was not "man enough" to
      even sign the letter.  And lastly, if Neil has a problem
      with my understanding that the natural eye is a
      sophisticated system -- he should not hide behind an
      "anynomous" letter to my wife.  He is truly deranged.  OSB]

Neil> I have NEVER threatened your uncle, nor ANY member of your
     family (nor anybody else, in my 40 years) with ANY harm.

Otis> [My wife was truy afraid of this anynomous letter that you
     sent.  Her fear deeply affect me.  OSB]

Neil> I HAVE told your uncle that I have heard from people,
     directly, who feel they were harmed by following his
     advice, and that -- if and as appropriate, I would provide
     any and all of that information to any and all relevant
     authorities.  They could then prosecute if, and as, they
     saw fit.

[Prevention with the plus is the second-opinion.  Is Neil going to
      sue all ODs who would offer the a DISCUSSION of the
      second-opinion to the parents of a child then that
      is profoundly tragic.  Does Neil Brooks
      claim to be such a total expert that he could do this --
      and enforce it.    OSB]

Neil> It is my belief that he is -- knowingly or not -- practicing
     medicine without a license, and putting at risk the most
     vulnerable:  desperate parents searching for solutions for
     their children.

[That is Neil's belief -- not supported by any objective facts as they
      concern the behavior of the natural eye under direct test.
      That there is a difference of opinion concerning this
      proven behavior of the natural eye that is reasonable.
      Threatining to "sue" people because of a difference
      of judgment about the dynamic nature of the natural
      eye is NOT how you resovle scientific arguments.
      That Neil wants to DICTATE the majority opinion is profoundly
      tragic -- for all those who have an intellectual "open
      mind" about these issues.  OSB]

Brooks> Otis is the one who has -- time and again -- invoked you
    and your sister as "proof" in his posts.  He's the one who
    put your e-mail addresses on publicly available websites.

Otis>  I "restricted" Keith's email address to ONLY friends who
      were discussing prevention-with-plus.  His email was not on
      the "net".  Your obviousy obtained it from "friends" who
      have been discussing true-prevention PRIVATELY.

Brooks> As for me, no living soul has anything to fear from me ...
    other than LEGAL action, if indicated.

Otis> You should have seen the fear in my wife's eyes when she got
     your anynomous letter.

Neil> (Hear that, Otis?)

Otis> That letter convinced me that you are are insane and will STOP
     AT NOTHING to envorce your distorted beliefs.
     I have not met one MEDICAL DOCTOR who shares your
     belief that a minus lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive
     state of the natural primate eye.

Neil> You seem like a decent guy, Keith.  I genuinely DID want to
     find out if your uncle was losing his mind.  If he was,
     then I was resigned to cease communicating with him.  If he
     wasn't, then it was my intention to provide relevant
     information to legal authorities for them to pursue.

Otis> Keith has scientific information available to him from
     Raphaelson, Colgate, Young, T.  Grosvenor, R.  Berger and
     many others concerning the preventive second-opinion.  He
     valued his distant vision and choose to invoke the method
     of the plus.  I was concerned that he use the plus
     effectively enought to always keep his distant vision as
     PASSING ALL LEGAL VISUAL ACUITY STANDADS.  He did this with
     the plus -- and better.  At last check he read better-than
     20/20.  And Neil works to supress this honest
     second-opinion?  And threatens people with anynomous
     letters when they do not agree with NEIL's opinion on
     the subject of the natural eye's proven behavior?

Neil> In the end, though, I'm not sure you're correct in your
     assumptions about his status.  I'm just not sure.

Otis> Sending anynomus letters to a man's wife is an indication of
     insanity or a deranged mind.  Face that fact Neil.

Otis> The ODs have no choice to do what they do.  In their
     "position" I would have NO CHOICE but to do what they do.
     I can not critize them for that reason.  I consistently
     used the term "refractive state" to ensure that the
     point is understood.

Otis> I have been very restrained in my dissucsion in that area.
     With these ODs I have an "intellectual" argument -- no more
     than that.  But Neil wants to DICTATE and control -- and that
     is truly a real problem and can stifle work to achieve
     effective prevention for those who desire it.