 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / June 2007FYI: Outrageous Revival
Don't be fooled by the good behavior of Revival/Kaze et.al. today. This chameleon is likely to come back in any of the old screen names or new ones to preach futility, to kick, insult and stir the pot. I have no idea what motivates somebody to do that, but then I could never fully comprehend the mind of the insane. The reason for me raising the issue again is a couple of messages that were posted on sci.med.vision but are no longer there, apparently removed by the writer. The reason for the removal (I presume) is that the writer him/herself realized how outrageous the messages were and decided to eliminate them. Both messages go back to the same Revival at the address of "absolutely invinsible @ hotmail.com" Remember, this is the same little Norweigian girl who sent us to Bates, then had a 12-yr old twin, then had an ambition to become an ophthalmologist, then supported Otis but later kicked him, then recommended water as the cure for all eye ailments, then attempted to steal Neil's name, then repented and asked Neil to forgive him for bad behavior but in no time went back to kicking and screaming about who knows what, and today decided to be temporarily nice and quiet. OK, here are the 2 deleted outrageous messages, both in response to me, from the person who wants to become an ophthalmologist: Message #1 William Horatio Bates - 06 Jun 2007 09:15 GMT (quoting me): "can help my bad eye (currently 20/400, after a macular hole, retinal detachment and presently very thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I seek a second opinion?" I have cured many relatives and friends under such conditions. Nature is always willing to forgive the harm you have self inflicted on your eyes. The mercy of Allah is without limits. ---------------------------- Message #2 Itachi - 06 Jun 2007 09:21 GMT (quoting me again): "can help my bad eye (currently 20/400, after a macular hole, retinal detachment and presently very thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I seek a second opinion?" Indeed, it is possible to cure a person in your current state. Laugh at me, ridicule me, but at the end of the day, who is blind? ---------------------------- Even if you ignore the ridiculous flawed logic (mercy of Allah, unsubstantiated claim of "self inflicted harm", offering non-specific "cure" and threatening the non-followers in blindness, etc.) -- will you send your child, mother or friend to this ophthalmologist? Revival has done nothing to help anybody here. Whether s/he is a kid or a mentally disturbed adult is irrelevant. No repent, this person cannot be forgiven. > The reason for me raising the issue again is a couple of messages that > were posted on sci.med.vision but are no longer there, apparently > removed by the writer. The reason for the removal (I presume) is that > the writer him/herself realized how outrageous the messages were and > decided to eliminate them. Both messages go back to the same Revival > at the address of "absolutely invinsible @ hotmail.com" As Revival itself has shown us, forging the return address is less than trivial. You just type it in and it's there. Both messages appear to have come from Google. Perhaps the complaint that Neal made got these messages deleted from Google, which you appear to be using also. It is nearly impossible for a user to delete their messages. Both of these messages are on my newserver at Sonic. > Revival has done nothing to help anybody here. Whether s/he is a kid > or a mentally disturbed adult is irrelevant. No repent, this person > cannot be forgiven. Maybe not forgiven, but forgotten? I no longer see any messages from it, except through quotes by other people. You got too much time on your hands. Dear Brainy, You are correct. There is a lot of double posting on sci.med.vision. In fact, a person might come back as "Ms. Brainy", or "Odis@pa.net", or other false postings. So there is no doubt about it. The majority-opinion ODs posting here are good. No doubt about it. Where they have their own web site -- you can check -- and should. The arguments we have are intellectual -- only. I hope you understand the difference in concept in the first place. Otis > Don't be fooled by the good behavior of Revival/Kaze et.al. today. > This chameleon is likely to come back in any of the old screen names [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > or a mentally disturbed adult is irrelevant. No repent, this person > cannot be forgiven. On Jun 8, 6:03 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > The arguments we have are intellectual -- only. The only thing "intellectual" about YOUR side of the "argument" is the never-ending intellectual dishonesty. Care to answer my questions now? http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Dear Neil, As I understand it -- you are from San Diego -- is that correct. Now, answer my question: A person posted from San Diego under the assumed name "Odis@pa.net". Did you make that post? Otis > On Jun 8, 6:03 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt On Jun 8, 6:55 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Did you make that post? And now, once again, we have the ultimate audacity of Uncle Otie: To dodge valid questions time and again, yet feel a sense of entitlement to have YOUR questions answered. Nice try. You start. We'll see where it goes from there. http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt Come on. Fully, honestly, completely, and directly. Yet again, Neil Books, you evaded the question. As an engineer, I would suggest that you are the only person how hates the concept of the second-opinion -- posting from San Diego. What is the probability that some stranger, in San Diego, could post remarks about plus-prevention, and some of the concepts I express about the natural eye's dynamic behavior -- except you. About 1 percent I would think. But you do have plausable denial, based on that remote possibilty. The others can judge this the probability for themselves, and your credibility also. Otis > On Jun 8, 6:55 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Come on. Fully, honestly, completely, and directly. On Jun 8, 8:41 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Yet again, Neil Books, you evaded the question. Do you have ANY capacity whatsoever to recognize what a hypocritical idiot you are?? > As an engineer, I would suggest that you are the > only person how hates the concept of the second-opinion -- posting > from San Diego. Well, that seems about as honest, educated, informed, likely, and reasonable as anything else you've ever posted. In other words: standard Uncle Otie lunacy. > What is the probability that some stranger, in San Diego, > could post remarks about plus-prevention, and > some of the concepts I express about the natural eye's > dynamic behavior -- except you. As always, Uncle Otie: nobody here EVER posts remarks like that EXCEPT YOU. > About 1 percent I would think. But you do > have plausable denial, based on that remote > possibilty. That's a similar percentage to the likelihood that a court of law would declare you mentally competent. > The others can judge this the probability for > themselves, and your credibility also. Mine holds up. Yours fails ... miserably. Off your meds again, Uncle Otie? On Jun 8, 9:55 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Neil, > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt well since you are obviously still around and reading this newsgroup, why don't you please address the open questions in the thread you posted yesterday. Here is the link to that thread: http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/42c3ec1882689 c3b/ac668540e6dc5b27?hl=en# and then, in my reply, I asked you the following: "perhaps you would like to tell us what your conclusions are from these publications-- as an objective engineer and as a rational thinking person, what do these publications prove to you?" Otis-- why do you avoid logical direct back-and-forth discussion? You would more likely be struck twice by lightning than ever get a direct dialogue going with Otis Brown, Engineer. Otis' SOP is to come into a thread, vomit up all his "Stirling Colgate/Raphaelson/wretched minus" bullshit and then beat a hasty retreat when someone tries to get him to prove what he claims. Otis loves the anonymity offered by the internet. In real life if he were to make all these false claims he would be within reach of the authorities. ========== >why don't you please address the open questions in the thread you >posted yesterday. Here is the link to that thread: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Otis-- why do you avoid logical direct back-and-forth discussion? On Jun 8, 6:03 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Dear Brainy, > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - Otis! You are hijacking a thread again! There are enough threads dedicated to you, is it necessary for you to dominate all other threads? This thread is dedicated to Revival, not you! Or do you believe that the plus, the water and the mercy of Allah are all the same in curing the "self-inflicted harm", as long as they are not the evil minus? As you see, Revival is temporarily gone since he has nothing to offer. Why don't you follow his example? sori brainy revival have lots of homework to finish... revival play tommorroww |
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.