Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Neil Brooks invents delayed adjustable sutures.

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Aug 2007 18:12 GMT
Dear Neil,

I understood that you invented delayed
adjustable sutures.  See:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/f04fa8ff3ac779b8

Please explain how a man with no medical traning "invents" a medical
technique that is
highly complex and requires the skills of a surgeon?

Have you published papers on your new technique?

Could you supply a published monograph with
yourself and other surgeons that let up to
the delayed suture technique.

I think David Guyton would be interested in how
you did this -- with no medical training.
You might be charged with malpractice.

Has your new method been reviewed by medical people?

How can you do this with no medical background, traning or experience?

Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 02 Aug 2007 18:30 GMT
>Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>technique that is
>highly complex and requires the skills of a surgeon?

Unbridled genius, I guess.

>Have you published papers on your new technique?

Nope.

>Could you supply a published monograph with
>yourself and other surgeons that let up to
>the delayed suture technique.

I can't supply a published monograph if I never published any papers,
now can I?

Other surgeons?  Why don't you ask David Granet?  I gave you his phone
number.  You seem to be obsessed with his photograph.  Dial him up.
I'm sure he'd LOVE to hear from you.....

>I think David Guyton would be interested in how
>you did this -- with no medical training.
>You might be charged with malpractice.

It's more than likely that GUYTON IS using the method that I proposed.
It's leading-edge among strab surgeons.

>Has your new method been reviewed by medical people?

Ask David Guyton and/or David Granet.  IIRC, they're BOTH medical
people.

>How can you do this with no medical background, traning or experience?

Unbridled genius, I guess.

Why don't you ask David Granet how this came to be.  

Why don't you EVER TAKE EVEN A SIMPLE STEP TOWARD VALIDATING OR
INVALIDATING A HYPOTHESIS??

Still looking for "gotcha" opportunties, eh, Uncle Otie?  You keep on
digging.  I'm safe.  

That's one of the many luxuries that COMES from BEING honest and
forthcoming.

Wish you could say the same thing....
Zetsu - 02 Aug 2007 19:24 GMT
>That's one of the many luxuries that COMES from BEING honest and

Which one, Neil? The one that turned you into such an idiot?

Must be one hell of a luxury.
Neil Brooks - 03 Aug 2007 16:24 GMT
>>Dear Neil,
>>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>number.  You seem to be obsessed with his photograph.  Dial him up.
>I'm sure he'd LOVE to hear from you.....

DID YOU CALL DAVID GRANET (858-534-2020) YET, UNCLE OTIE?  I KNOW YOU
HAVE A LOT ON YOUR PLATE.  I'LL JUST KEEP FOLLOWING UP WITH YOU ...
YOU KNOW ... TO HELP YOU STAY ORGANIZED.

SO ... DID YOU?

>>I think David Guyton would be interested in how
>>you did this -- with no medical training.
>>You might be charged with malpractice.
>
>It's more than likely that GUYTON IS using the method that I proposed.
>It's leading-edge among strab surgeons.

SIMILARLY, DID YOU CHECK TO SEE IF GUYTON IS USING THE DELAYED
ADJUSTABLE SUTURE TECHNIQUE YET, UNCLE OTIE?

>>Has your new method been reviewed by medical people?
>
>Ask David Guyton and/or David Granet.  IIRC, they're BOTH medical
>people.

DID YOU ASK THEM??

>>How can you do this with no medical background, traning or experience?
>
>Unbridled genius, I guess.
>
>Why don't you ask David Granet how this came to be.  

DID YOU ASK HIM YET, UNCLE OTIE??

DON'T WORRY.  I'LL KEEP REMINDING YOU UNTIL YOU DO.

>Why don't you EVER TAKE EVEN A SIMPLE STEP TOWARD VALIDATING OR
>INVALIDATING A HYPOTHESIS??
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>
>Wish you could say the same thing....
Neil Brooks - 03 Aug 2007 17:01 GMT
HEY .... a.shole?

DID YOU ASK DAVID GRANET YET??  WHY SPECULATE (OR INSINUATE) ABOUT
READILY PROVEN ISSUES OF FACT.  

WHY NOT JUST CALL DAVID GRANET??  

(858) 534-2020

From: Otis's little soapbox @

http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Myopiafree2/message/912

OTHER PARTICIPANTS ON THIS FORUM -- PARTICULARLY THOSE WHO CHOOSE TO
DIRECT THEIR IRE AT /ME/ -- NEED TO LINGER A SHORT WHILE ON ACTIONS
LIKE THIS BY OTIS.

HE POSTED THIS TODAY.

<====
NeilCred.txt

Subject: Neil Brooks credibility.

While a side-topic, remarks by David Granet -- attacking Alex
Eulenberg about myopia prevention, and Neil Brooks attacking me
for advocating prevention -- produce a "credibility problem"
for Neil Brooks.

We truly must inquire as to Brook's credibility on these
issues.

Here is an example of his claim that he invented the "Delayed
Adjustable Suture", used for strabismus surgery.

You can judge his credibility yourself.

Otis
====>
CatmanX - 02 Aug 2007 22:20 GMT
Looking up posts from 18 months ago Cletis? Trying to discredit Neil
because he can see what a raving idiot you are and tells people about
it?

You really are the loser we know you to be.

dr grant
otisbrown@pa.net - 03 Aug 2007 19:43 GMT
I called Granet's number.

Got a recording.  End of story.

The ophthamologist (I will NOT identify) "in question" was bemused by
Brooks antics.

Donald Rehm wants NOTHING TO DO WITH NEIL BROOKS.
He will not talk to him, nor will not reply to any comments
and "made up" stories of this inventor of the
slip-suture for strabismus.

If you feel you can "trust" this unknown inventor
of the slip-suture, on ANY TOPIC, continue
talking to him.  I am simply fed up with
this jerk.

Otis

On Aug 2, 1:12 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 03 Aug 2007 20:02 GMT
>I called Granet's number.

With or without help?

>Got a recording.  End of story.

Or is it ... ?  Stay tuned as Otis changes the story below....

>The ophthamologist (I will NOT identify) "in question" was bemused by
>Brooks antics.

But ... I though you got a recording ... and that that was the "end of
story?"  You don't seem lucid, Uncle Otie.  Please explain.

So ...

- you got a recording, but an unnamed ophthalmologist was "bemused by
my antics?"

- Did you talk to David Granet? Yes or no.

- Did you ask him whether or not delayed adjustable suture technique
was my idea? Yes or no.

- If you DID ask him about this, then what was his answer?

You are a pathologically dishonest, demented old fool.  

Maybe quite a few people don't notice that you haven't actually
answered a single direct question, as always, but ... I can ... and
that's enough.

>Donald Rehm wants NOTHING TO DO WITH NEIL BROOKS.

Who said anything about talking to Don Rehm?   Nice straw man, Uncle
Otie.

'Twas Alex Eulenberg that verified the absolute truth about Rehm's
statements of the risks of using unprescribed plus lenses.  Then Alex,
TOO, lied about THOSE risks.  Rehm acknowledged them.  Alex denied
them.

Birds of a feather, Uncle Otie?

>He will not talk to him, nor will not reply to any comments

Gee.  I didn't realize there was any dialogue there.  Maybe it's
because there wasn't.

>and "made up" stories of this inventor of the
>slip-suture for strabismus.

You're ... um ... lying again, Uncle Otie.   Did you talk with David
Granet, or didn't you?  What happened to "the recording?"  Did you
simply talk while the recording was playing??

Can even YOU keep track of the truth anymore?

>If you feel you can "trust" this unknown inventor
>of the slip-suture, on ANY TOPIC, continue
>talking to him.

I've NEVER lied on this forum.  Have you EVER told the truth?

How well DID plus lens therapy work for your myopic niece, Joyce V.
Benson, Uncle Otie?  

Why don't you ever talk about that results of THAT "purely scientific
experiment?"

>  I am simply fed up with this jerk.

You're tired of being wrong, having people call you on your lies, and
having somebody ask you to back up all of your erroneous claims.

I don't doubt that.

But ... as I've repeatedly said, and as I've repeatedly shown ...
you're a pathological liar, operating at diminished capacity, and
probably shouldn't be allowed to handle your own financial or legal
affairs.  You CERTAINLY shouldn't be meddling in ANYBODY'S MEDICAL
situation.

Seriously.

And ... for the record ... you hurt people BY your lies.

Not me.  I'm honest ... and I don't hurt people, and -- ya' know what?
That really DOES make me better than you.

Still waiting for the truth of your attempts to reach Dave Granet,
Uncle Otie.

I'll ... uh ... keep reminding you until you let me know.  

Try to remember that I can verify YOUR story with a phone call or
e-mail, so ... please try not to lie.  

I know you cannot promise, but ... please just try.
Neil Brooks - 04 Aug 2007 17:07 GMT
OTIS???  WE'RE STILL A LITTLE SHORT ON DETAILS HERE.  WOULD YOU MIND
ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS BELOW??

PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US IN SUSPENSE.

MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR A LITTLE PARABLE ... "THE PRINTER'S SON" OR "THE
AMBULANCE ON ITS WAY TO PICK UP UNCLE OTIE," OR SOMETHING.

WE'RE ON PINS AND NEEDLES WAITING FOR THE ANSWERS HERE.

PLEASE??

>>I called Granet's number.
>
[quoted text clipped - 95 lines]
>
>I know you cannot promise, but ... please just try.
otisbrown@pa.net - 04 Aug 2007 18:02 GMT
X-No-Archive:

Neil -- don't worry about it.

If fact, I think you are the ONLY one reading my site:

www.myopiafree.com

You are far more "interested" in this -- than any
layman I know of.

In fact, you are sending more readers to myopiafree
then anyone else has ever done!!!!

Incredible!

> OTIS???  WE'RE STILL A LITTLE SHORT ON DETAILS HERE.  WOULD YOU MIND
> ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS BELOW??
[quoted text clipped - 112 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 04 Aug 2007 18:05 GMT
>Neil -- don't worry about it.

I'm not "worried about it," Uncle Otie.

I'd just like you to answer my questions.  You keep lying and lying
and lying about matters of fact that are easily resolved, but ... you
won't resolve them, and you won't answer them honestly or directly.

Why is that, do you suppose?

AND ... if you continue to lie, and if you continue to evade direct
and relevant questions, I want to make sure that each and every person
that witnesses this ... realizes that this is EXACTLY what you're
doing, so that NOBODY EVER ascribes a scintilla of credibility to
ANYTHING you say.

That should help people to avoid hurting themselves based on your
advice.
p.clarkii@gmail.com - 05 Aug 2007 16:01 GMT
On Aug 4, 1:02 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> If fact, I think you are the ONLY one reading my site:
>
> www.myopiafree.com

=============

otis,

out of all your posts in this thread, this statement is the only one
that made any sense to me.

I have to admit I don't understand at all this "alternative identity"
issue that you keep trying to make about Neil Brooks.  Do you really
think he is misrepresenting his identity in this forum?  Does it
really matter anyway?

I have come to observe Neil's posting style from afar, and I have come
to believe that he may be many things but he is not dishonest,
deceitful, or a liar.  i believe that what he says is true.  Could it
be that you are just a little too paranoid?
Neil Brooks - 05 Aug 2007 05:13 GMT
OTIS???  WE'RE STILL A LITTLE SHORT ON DETAILS HERE.  WOULD YOU MIND
ADDRESSING THE QUESTIONS BELOW??

PLEASE DON'T LEAVE US IN SUSPENSE.

MAYBE IT'S TIME FOR A LITTLE PARABLE ... "THE PRINTER'S SON" OR "THE
AMBULANCE ON ITS WAY TO PICK UP UNCLE OTIE," OR SOMETHING.

WE'RE ON PINS AND NEEDLES WAITING FOR THE ANSWERS HERE.

PLEASE??

>On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 11:43:00 -0700, "otisbrown@pa.net"
><otisbrown@pa.net> wrote:
[quoted text clipped - 98 lines]
>
>I know you cannot promise, but ... please just try.
Neil Brooks - 10 Aug 2007 01:35 GMT
>Dear Neil,
>
>I understood that you invented delayed
>adjustable sutures.  See:

Otis, you're a f.cking idiot.

I see you posted this crap on your little soapbox again today.

Have you called David Granet yet?

Wouldn't it be better to get to the TRUTH of the matter than it is to
speculate devoid of any facts whatsoever?

I mean ... for YOU it might, but ... a true "man of science" would
want to make that call.

Don't continue to hide in fear.  Make the call.

[snip]
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Aug 2007 02:43 GMT
Hey, Neil,

Subject:  I got a suggestion for you.

I simply post your remarks on Myopiafree -- for
the reader to judge the accuracy of your statements.

And you don't like it??

I have a suggestion.

Stop reading my remarks on Myopiafree, and
I will stop responding on sci.med.vision.

And stop sending me you foul tongue emails.

You are one sick dude.

So:

No more more emails -- or I will post them on
sci.med.vision.

And I will stop responding on sci.med.vision.

Do we have an agreement?

Otis

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:12:06 -0700, "otisbr...@pa.net"
>
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> [snip]
Neil Brooks - 10 Aug 2007 03:20 GMT
>Subject:  I got a suggestion for you.

And I have dozens for you.

>I simply post your remarks on Myopiafree -- for
>the reader to judge the accuracy of your statements.
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>Stop reading my remarks on Myopiafree, and
>I will stop responding on sci.med.vision.

I don't make deals with the pathologically dishonest and impaired.

As long as you continue to post, I'll continue to make it clear to
EVERYBODY what a f.cking idiot you are.

That's my counter-offer.

>And stop sending me you foul tongue emails.

I can't help it that you're a f.cking idiot, Otis.  

Apparently, you can't help it either.

>You are one sick dude.

That's so ironic that it's funny!

I would WAGER that you would not be declared mentally competent by a
panel of mental health professionals.

Seriously.

>So:
>
>No more more emails -- or I will post them on
>sci.med.vision.

You're a f.cking idiot, Otis.  

Post that ... wherever you like.

>And I will stop responding on sci.med.vision.
>
>Do we have an agreement?

I told you the "agreement" that we have: As long as you continue to
post, I'll ensure that EVERYBODY can see you for the f.cking idiot you
are.

Vulgarity never hurt anybody.

Otis did.
otisbrown@pa.net - 10 Aug 2007 02:30 GMT
Dear Neil,

Subject:  Brooks> That's one of the many luxuries that COMES from
BEING
honest and forthcoming.

Re: Otis> Please explain how a man with no medical training "invents"
a medical technique that is highly complex and requires the
skills of a surgeon?

Re:  Brooks> Unbridled genius, I guess.

Actually, Neil, given the incompetent quality of your
answer, I hardly consider your answers to be "forthcoming".

I would rather judge that they are evasive at best.

I mean, how does a layman, with no medical knowledge
as you state, suddenly get the bright idea that he
"invented" the adjustable suture used in strabismus surgery???

Otis

==================

Neil Brooks View profile

Newsgroups: sci.med.vision

From: Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com>

Date: Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:30:32 -0700

Subject: Re: Neil Brooks invents delayed adjustable sutures.

Otis> Dear Neil,

Otis> I understood that you invented delayed adjustable sutures.
See:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/f04fa8ff3ac
779b8

Otis> Please explain how a man with no medical training "invents"
a medical technique that is highly complex and requires the
skills of a surgeon?

Brooks> Unbridled genius, I guess.

Otis> Have you published papers on your new technique?

Brooks> Nope.

Otis> Could you supply a published monograph with yourself and
other surgeons that let up to the delayed suture technique.

Brooks> I can't supply a published monograph if I never published
any papers, now can I?

Brooks> Other surgeons? Why don't you ask David Granet? I gave
you his phone number. You seem to be obsessed with his
photograph. Dial him up. I'm sure he'd LOVE to hear from
you.....

Otis> I think David Guyton would be interested in how you did this
-- with no medical training. You might be charged with
malpractice.

Brooks> It's more than likely that GUYTON IS using the method that
I proposed. It's leading-edge among strab surgeons.

Otis> Has your new method been reviewed by medical people?

Brooks> Ask David Guyton and/or David Granet. IIRC, they're BOTH
medical people.

Otis> How can you do this with no medical background, training or
experience?

Brooks> Unbridled genius, I guess.

Brooks> Why don't you ask David Granet how this came to be.

Brooks> Why don't you EVER TAKE EVEN A SIMPLE STEP TOWARD
VALIDATING OR INVALIDATING A HYPOTHESIS??

Brooks> Still looking for "gotcha" opportunities, eh, Uncle Otie?
You keep on digging. I'm safe.

Brooks> That's one of the many luxuries that COMES from BEING
honest and forthcoming.

Brooks> Wish you could say the same thing....

Neil D. Brooks

On Aug 2, 1:12 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 22 lines]
>
> Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 10 Aug 2007 03:14 GMT
>Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>
>Re:  Brooks> Unbridled genius, I guess.

You're a f.cking idiot, Otis.

Go call David Granet and ask him ... or ... continue your protracted
session of mental masturbation online.

Your choice.
Neil Brooks - 19 Sep 2007 02:34 GMT
On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Otis> Please explain how a man with no medical training "invents"
> a medical technique that is highly complex and requires the
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> Brooks> Wish you could say the same thing....

So ... Otis ... you pathological liar and absolute f.cking idiot ....

How ARE you doing on checking out my story with Dave Granet, huh?

I'll keep reminding you ... from time to time ... just so you don't
forget ... and so that nobody ELSE forgets ... what a pathological
liar and absolute f.cking idiot you are.

Cheers!
Neil Brooks - 19 Sep 2007 17:34 GMT
**** OTIS?  HAVE YOU FOLLOWED UP WITH DR. GRANET YET??  I WOULDN'T
WANT YOU TO CONTINUE TO LIE WHEN VERIFICATION CAN BE HAD SO SIMPLY,
AND ... WE ALL KNOW THAT <YOU'D> RATHER KNOW THE TRUTH, RIGHT?? ****

PLEASE KEEP US ALL POSTED.  THANKS.

On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> > Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 20 Sep 2007 04:47 GMT
SCROTIS?

HAVE YOU CHECKED OUT MY STORY YET??

I JUST *KNOW* THAT YOU'RE A MAN TO WHOM TRUTH MEANS EVERYTHING,
RIGHT?

SO ... HOW ABOUT MAKING THAT CALL TO DAVE GRANET AND LETTING US KNOW
WHAT HE SAYS.

I'LL KEEP REMINDING YOU.  IN YOUR "DELICATE CONDITION," I'M SURE A LOT
OF THINGS SLIP YOUR MIND.

On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> > Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 25 Sep 2007 23:53 GMT
OTIS??

HAVE YOU CHECKED OUT THE FACTS IN THIS STORY YET .... ARE ARE YOU
STILL CONTENT BEING AN ABSOLUTE f.cking IDIOT AND PATHOLOGICAL LIAR??

THANKS.

On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> > Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 26 Sep 2007 16:39 GMT
SCROTIS??

THIS THREAD IS SLIPPING AGAIN ... AND I *KNOW* THAT *YOU* DON'T WANT
THAT.

COME ON.  CHIME IN.

WHAT *DID* DAVID GRANET SAY WHEN YOU CHECKED OUT THE FACTS?  WE ALL
KNOW THAT YOU DID.

A SELF-PROCLAIMED "MAN OF SCIENCE" JUST *WOULD* CHECK THE FACTS,
SO ... WHAT HAPPENED, UNCLE OTIE?

TELL US WHAT.

On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> > Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 27 Sep 2007 21:22 GMT
COME ON, UNCLE OTIS....  CLOSE THE LOOP FOR US.  YOU MUST HAVE CHECKED
THIS OUT WITH DR. GRANET BY NOW.

WHAT DID HE SAY, ANYWAY??

COME ON, UNCLE OTIS.  BE "SCIENTIFIC" ... IF ONLY THIS ONCE.

TELL THE TRUTH.

On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 120 lines]
>
> > Thanks,
Neil Brooks - 01 Oct 2007 04:50 GMT
Otis??

Ping?

Hello??  Is there anybody out there??

Just nod if you can hear me.

Is there anybody home.

On Aug 9, 6:30 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 122 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
otisbrown@pa.net - 01 Oct 2007 05:40 GMT
Dear Layman Brooks,

I am still looking for new published work from you about
how you are refining the development of your adjustable
suture for strabismus.

Are you planning to write up your wonderful discovery
and publish in the Journal of Physiological Optics?.

Or perhaps the New England Journal of Medicine.

Also could you supply your C.V. to give us your
background as to how a layman develops this
type of pure medical operation?

Please explain,

Still waiting ... waiting .. waiting....

> Otis??
>
[quoted text clipped - 136 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 02 Oct 2007 01:52 GMT
Come on, ya f.cking douchebag.  I answered your questions.  The ball
is in YOUR court to verify that what I have said is 100% true.

But you -- an emasculated old psychopath, a pathological liar, and a
f.cking idiot ... won't.

Otis?  Don't be afraid to PROVE you're a lying f.cking idiot.  Nobody
will be surprised.  It MIGHT actually help your credibility.

Back to you ... .you absolute f.cking idiot.

Call Dave Granet.  We'll wait here....

On Sep 30, 9:40 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Layman Brooks,
>
[quoted text clipped - 157 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
otisbrown@pa.net - 02 Oct 2007 03:29 GMT
Still waiting for Brook's CV.

waiting .. waiting ...

What was that sound?  Was that ice breaking.

Must be the sound of hell freezing over.

Waiting ... waiting ... waiting ..

> Come on, ya f.cking douchebag.  I answered your questions.  The ball
> is in YOUR court to verify that what I have said is 100% true.
[quoted text clipped - 174 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 02 Oct 2007 03:55 GMT
On Oct 1, 7:29 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Still waiting for Brook's CV.

Why, Uncle Otis.  My arguments stand on their merits.  That's all you
need.

Did you call Dave Granet yet??

> waiting .. waiting ...

and lying .... lying ...  like the absolute f.cking idiot that you
are.

> What was that sound?  Was that ice breaking.

Probably the sound of somebody smashing their plus lenses after their
unprescribed use induced double vision.

> Waiting ... waiting ... waiting ..

Did you call Dave Granet yet ... you pathological liar and absolute
f.cking idiot?

THAT's what the waiting is about.

Come on, Otis.  Stay on point.  Take more Thorazine, if you must.  DID
you call Dave Granet to verify the truth of what I said ... or are you
just going to rest on your laurels ... as an absolute f.cking idiot
and pathological liar?

Just curious.
Zetsu - 02 Oct 2007 19:19 GMT
SUCH IMMATURE behaviour.
Are you two in nursery school or WHAT!
GOsh, sometimes it's hard to believe that you (Neil/Otis) are actually
two FULLY GROWN adults. I mean I would understand if you were, say, a
couple of prepuberty 11 year olds, but seriously....  a 43 year old
and a 67 year old... disgusting!
Neil Brooks - 03 Oct 2007 20:07 GMT
Scrotis??  Aren't you going to address the ACTUAL ISSUES raised here?

DID you verify the facts of what I said, or ARE you just going to go
on being a pathological liar and an absolute f.cking idiot?

QED

> On Oct 1, 7:29 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> Just curious.
otisbrown@pa.net - 03 Oct 2007 20:50 GMT
Dear Neil,

Subject: News Flash -- Layman Brooks "invents" suture.

I understood that you invented delayed
adjustable sutures.  See:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/msg/f04fa8ff3ac779b8

Please explain how a man with no medical traning "invents" a medical
technique that is
highly complex and requires the skills of a surgeon?

Have you published papers on your new technique?

Could you supply a published monograph with
yourself and other surgeons that let up to
the delayed suture technique.

Just face it, you are just a bull-sh.t artist,
with no clue about what you are taking about.

Thanks in advance,

> Scrotis??  Aren't you going to address the ACTUAL ISSUES raised here?
>
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 03 Oct 2007 21:06 GMT
On Oct 3, 12:50 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

> Subject: News Flash -- Layman Brooks "invents" suture.

858-534-2020
David Granet, MD.

Let us know how the call goes ... you absolute f.cking idiot and
pathological liar.

> I understood that you invented delayed
> adjustable sutures.  See:
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Zetsu - 03 Oct 2007 21:15 GMT
SUCH IMMATURE behaviour.
Are you two in nursery school or WHAT!
GOsh, sometimes it's hard to believe that you (Neil/Otis) are actually
two FULLY GROWN adults. I mean I would understand if you were, say, a
couple of prepuberty 11 year olds, but seriously....  a 43 year old
and a 67 year old... disgusting!
Neil Brooks - 03 Oct 2007 21:19 GMT
> SUCH IMMATURE behaviour.
> Are you two in nursery school or WHAT!
> GOsh, sometimes it's hard to believe that you (Neil/Otis) are actually
> two FULLY GROWN adults. I mean I would understand if you were, say, a
> couple of prepuberty 11 year olds, but seriously....  a 43 year old
> and a 67 year old... disgusting!

1) who gives a f.ck what you say/think?

2) when it's so abundantly clear, and readily verifiable, that
somebody's factually in error, it's good to give them a way to set
themselves straight.  THAT, of course, is what I'm doing.

3) who gives a f.ck what you say/think?
Neil Brooks - 05 Oct 2007 18:09 GMT
Otis??

You didn't forget about this, did you??

Here's the info again:

 David Granet, MD
 858-534-2020

Make the call.  Let us know how it goes.  Don't forget how easily I
can verify whether you called, and what transpired.

IOW: Try NOT to be a pathological liar.....

On Oct 3, 12:50 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Thanks in advance,
Zetsu - 05 Oct 2007 20:38 GMT
Such immature behaviour, is most despicable from two adults.
Neil Brooks - 07 Oct 2007 15:52 GMT
> Such immature behaviour, is most despicable from two adults.

Out of idle curiosity ... who gives a f.ck what you think?

The irony of you indicting people for [your perception of] their
maturity is analogous to Otis saying that somebody has twisted his
words!
otisbrown@pa.net - 07 Oct 2007 16:26 GMT
Subject:  Neil -- did you "change your mind"???

Under the name Neil Brooks you posted:

"CatmanX" <drgr...@ozemail.com.au> wrote:
>Why do people expect miracles immediately?

>Your doctor can do nothing until all the inflammation has settled. Just
>relax, stop worrying about how your eyes look and wait until your next
>visit.

Neil Brooks> That's why I developed the delayed adjustable suture
technique.

Brooks> Before my third strab surgery (1998), my surgeon explained
the
inflammation to me.  I asked him, "Then why don't we just wait a
couple of days before adjusting the sutures."

Brooks> Et voila ... a new method was developed ... for which I
receive
exactly zero money :-(

[Did you mean that Granet invented the "adjustable suture", and
that you just dreamed that you did??? Please clarify your what
you meant by this statement.  OSB]

Brooks> He takes the credit ... and I let him ... because he's
genuinely a
good guy and a great ophthalmologist :-)

[You mean that you invented the adjustable stuture, and
Dr. Granet "took the credit"?? OSB]

Brooks>  But he and I /both/ know....

[You identify with Grant a lot -- don't you?  OSB]

Brooks> Agree w/Dr. Grant: be patient until it's time not to.  It's
not time
yet.

==========

Please clarify these statments.  Have you changed your mind
and state that you did NOT invent the adjustable suture,
but were "confused", and that Dr. Granet did so.  Is that
your "changed" story. Please explain.

Thanks

On Oct 3, 3:50 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 63 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -
Neil Brooks - 07 Oct 2007 16:47 GMT
Dear Otis:

You should work ... diligently ... on this f.cking idiot/absolute liar
thing.  It's overwhelming you.

What I posted on, s.m.v., about the origins of the delayed adjustable
suture technique ... is exactly what happened.

>From me, one gets: no inconsistencies, no puffery, and no dishonesty.

>From you, one gets: lies, bullshit, harm, illogic, incoherence,
irrational thought, and medical harm.

Please make a quick call to David Granet ... at 858-534-2020 ... and
ask him to recount the event for you.

----

On Oct 7, 8:26 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Subject:  Neil -- did you "change your mind"???
>
[quoted text clipped - 115 lines]
>
> > - Show quoted text -
Zetsu - 07 Oct 2007 17:49 GMT
You two really are immature and you ought to grow up!
Neil Brooks - 08 Oct 2007 05:49 GMT
Apparently, Otis DID e-mail Dr. Granet.  I was cc'd on Dr. Granet's
reply TO Otis.

Otis?  Maybe it's time you left s.m.v.  You are dishonorable AND
thoroughly discredited.

----Dave Granet's reply----

Otis-

I sadly googled myself after your message and was horrified to find my
name bandied about with such venom.  I will respond to your question
but I would appreciate a more civil discussion if it involves me in
any way.

As to the adjustable sutures - here is the short history.  I have
asked Neil Brooks if I may share his medical history and he has given
me permission in order to answer this query.

Neil came to me years ago having seen many pediatric ophthalmologists
around the country.  He was frustrated by his long history of
strabismus and accommodative problems.  We spent much time discussing
his options and I was impressed by his intelligence.  I "assigned" him
much homework hoping to ease his frustration by educating him.  (As an
aside, when Neil comes in I have our junior residents block out an
extended time period to examine him, review his history and chat - for
THEIR education.)

On one appointment while again discussing possible surgery Neil
broached the idea of delaying the adjustment as long as possible to
allow his brain to adapt before we finalized the location of the
muscle.  I had done some related research previously and had
considered the idea but never done it.  I was aware of the work done
by Christine Burns from Florida along these lines.

Neil and I discussed the options and I pieced together some parts from
the medical literature (like Rick Saunders - "Do we need to tie the
knot?" and my own work with hyaluronic acid).   With much courage Neil
proceeded knowing I had never done this surgery before.  From his
success we have done many hundreds of these procedures, presented at
national meetings and combined our data with some other centers (some
we triggered to use this procedure, others had worked along similar
lines) to create a manuscript just submitted for publication.  I have
since taught many fellows, american and international this approach so
it has affected more patients than I could ever help myself.

Whenever Neil comes in I point out the pivotal role he played in the
development of delayed adjustable sutures.   I may have eventually
reached the same place or not, but the fact remains it was his issues,
his persistence in wanting a delayed adjustment and his courage to
allow me to try that was the "tipping point" for us in San Diego.
I'd like to think that the team effort of an educated patient with a
caring educated medical partner is the future of health care.  It is
what we strive for.   I wish that always lead to perfect outcomes.

Neil Brooks has had a complicated and tortuous ocular past; he has
partnered in his care - reading in a careful and intelligent manner
the ophthalmic literature on every issue as it pertains to him.  I
have hopefully aided his education and care.  However, I will add, he
is not a doctor and should not provide medical care.  To my knowledge
his comments to other patients I've seen have been cogent and
appropriate.

I hope this answers your question.   So that there is no
misunderstanding feel free to forward this entire message to the
usegroup.  I will also send to Neil.  I have no wish to "enter into
the fray" nor do I want to receive a barrage of email that takes me
away from patients or family.  I would hope that sci.med.vision would
be a safe cordial place for folks to come and chat, learn, discuss and
maybe even disagree on topics relating to vision.

Sincerely,
David Granet
October 7, 2007
Ms.Brainy - 08 Oct 2007 06:06 GMT
> Apparently, Otis DID e-mail Dr. Granet.  I was cc'd on Dr. Granet's
> reply TO Otis.
[quoted text clipped - 70 lines]
> David Granet
> October 7, 2007

Remarkable.  Thank you Neil for sharing this email.

This should put an end to your nonsense, Otis.  Please don't reply.
RT - 08 Oct 2007 13:34 GMT
> I sadly googled myself after your message and was horrified to find my
> name bandied about with such venom.

"Horrified"!
Actions are not without consequences, especially when the motives are
selfish. Neil says he's saving the children, but his motives with Otis
in this case were selfish. He HAD to get credit for some procedure and
it didn't matter if, in the process, he insulted the doctor who was so
instrumental in helping him with his visual problems, a doctor who says
nice things about Neil.

Although Neil felt he wasn't hurting anyone by using such profoundly
ugly language, his highly respected doctor does a google search on
himself and is horrified to find his good name involved in such unseemly
exchanges.

> I have no wish to "enter into
> the fray" nor do I want to receive a barrage of email that takes me
> away from patients or family.  

I imagine neither he nor his practice want phone calls either from all
those dozens usenet posts by Neil Brooks, that are now archived all over
the world, where he lists Dr. Granet's phone number.

> I would hope that sci.med.vision would
> be a safe cordial place for folks to come and chat, learn, discuss and
> maybe even disagree on topics relating to vision.

Wouldn't that be nice, to log on and read posts that aren't full of
insults, profanities and ill wishes, but instead read mature, respectful
exchanges on topics related to vision?

Dr. Granet's reply to Otis is professional. It's too bad that one of his
patients had to bring him down, take him away from his other patients
and family and have his name associated with such filth archived on
servers all over the world.

> I would appreciate a more civil discussion if it involves me in
> any way.

Neil might want to remember that next time he writes "f.cking idiot" and
David Granet in the same post.

It should make anyone think twice about wanting to spread ill will. The
people you end up hurting are not usually the ones you intend.

Signature

~RT

Neil Brooks - 08 Oct 2007 15:40 GMT
[snip]

> Wouldn't that be nice, to log on and read posts that aren't full of
> insults, profanities and ill wishes, but instead read mature, respectful
> exchanges on topics related to vision?

[snip]

> Neil might want to remember that next time he writes "f.cking idiot" and
> David Granet in the same post.

[snip]

Ya know, RT: out of respect for Dr. Granet (certainly not for
you....), I am NOT going to use similar language to address YOU ... in
THIS thread ... or ... at least ... in THIS post.

What an astonishing hypocrite you are, though.

Also, perhaps you're only about as sane, lucid, and rational as Otis.
Maybe less.  I can't be sure.

YOUR high horse (much like Otis's, I gather) involves a magnification
of the impacts of profanity.

MINE involves a desire to get a person with a HISTORY of causing
medical harm, being pathologically dishonest, and dangerously wrong on
a seemingly DAILY basis ... to stop with such irresponsible
posting ... lest he cause MORE harm to people with serious concern ...
coming here seeking advice.

BUT ... there's another PROFOUND difference between Otis and me: I
genuinely am a caring, compassionate, and sentient human being;
therefore, because I understand the upshot of Dave Granet's words,
I'll respect them ... as it relates to posts invoking HIS name.

Otis, on the other hand, will NOT stop lying (yes, lying.  Bald-faced
lying), insulting, evading, obfuscating, and disseminating medical
advice that ACTUALLY inures to the HARM of (primarily adolescent)
users.

RT?  Your choice of battles to fight is revealing ... and rather
disgusting ... IMO.  Again, to the wolves with those who may actually
BE hurt here, medically, but ... jump to the "defense" of Dave
Granet ... who surely needs no defense, and ... in the process ... de
facto to the defense of Otis who -- while I cannot be certain WHAT he
needs (Thorazine's a good first guess) -- acts in an indefensible
manner with virtually every post.

Your HYPOCRISY, on the other hand (allow me to re-quote):

> Neil might want to remember that next time he writes "f.cking idiot" and
> David Granet in the same post.

... makes you a hypocrite on a par with Otis.

Profanity or no profanity, I can think of no greater insult to use for
you.  For me, that's as bad as it gets.

But ... I'm quite confident that you'll give all of this ZERO
introspection ... while requesting introspection from others.

Bravo.
RT - 08 Oct 2007 17:19 GMT
>YOUR high horse (much like Otis's, I gather) involves a magnification
> of the impacts of profanity.

I'm not writing about the impact of profanity. I am writing about the
ugliness that radiates from you and then gets associated with those who
you appear to admire.

> Your HYPOCRISY, on the other hand (allow me to re-quote):
>
> > Neil might want to remember that next time he writes "f.cking idiot" and
> > David Granet in the same post.

LOL! You just can't get a post in this thread about Dr. Granet without
also including the words "f.cking idiot"! ROTFLMAO. Too hilarious!

> Ya know, RT: out of respect for Dr. Granet (certainly not for
> you....), I am NOT going to use similar language to address YOU ... in
> THIS thread ... or ... at least ... in THIS post.

Whether you actually type the words or cut and paste them Neil, you
perpetuate the relationship between Dr. Granet and "f.cking idiot" by
including them in your posts. LOL! Too funny. Hypocrisy!

> jump to the "defense" of Dave
> Granet ... who surely needs no defense, and

Let me explain this one more time: I am not defending Dave Granet. I
don't know him, never met him. Not going to call him. I don't care about
him. I do have a good opinion about him after reading his reply to Otis,
though.

I was talking about you and how you project ugliness into the world and
how your actions have consequences. How you may not be as harmless as
you believe yourself to be. And you now see this! ("I understand the
upshot of Dave Granet's words, I'll respect them ... as it relates to
posts invoking HIS name.") Bravo! It's a start.

> ... in the process ... de
> facto to the defense of Otis who

That conclusion is purely of someone who can only see the world in terms
of taking "sides." No where have I "defended" Otis any more than Dr.
Granet. It's this "if you're not with us, you're against us" attitude
that gets people, not to mention countries, in trouble! I don't reply to
Otis's posts because, frankly, been there, done that and in the grand
scheme of things he's a insignificant speck of dust that will remain no
matter how you try to sweep him away. You do show some compassion in
some of your posts, so it's sad that your strategy of pelting Otis with
insults hurts you and others (like Dr. Granet) but not your intended
target, Otis. He laughs at you Neil!

> Your choice of battles to fight is revealing ... and rather
> disgusting ... IMO.  Again, to the wolves with those who may actually
> BE hurt here, medically,

This is very interesting logic here Neil. Are you saying because I
suggest to you to create a website with credible and safe information
for parents and children rather than call a man a f.cking idiot that I'm
feeding people to the wolves who will medically harm them?

> But ... I'm quite confident that you'll give all of this ZERO
> introspection ... while requesting introspection from others.

After some introspection, I realize that no matter what I write you are
in no way able to see how you project an image of ugliness, how your
posts are ultimately destructive to you and to those people you hold in
high regard like Dr. Granet, and how your strategy with Otis is
ineffective. You have a lot of experience you can share with people.
It's too bad that your obsession with one person who, by the way,
clearly delights in your provocations, makes you appear obsessed and
crass.

Nothing you write on this board is going to "get" Otis to stop posting
the way that he does. It's painfully apparent, except to you. You would
serve a much better purpose in "saving" parents and children if you
spent the time you currently spend stalking Otis's posts and replying to
them by making an informative website where you can direct readers to
information that you deem safe and effective. Your greatest assets are
your own experiences you can share with others. As Dr. Granet pointed
out, you are not a doctor and should not provide medical care. But, you
can share your personal experiences and contribute advice and support
from the point of view of a patient who has done his "homework."

> ... makes you a hypocrite on a par with Otis.
>
> Profanity or no profanity, I can think of no greater insult to use for
> you.  For me, that's as bad as it gets.

Why do you feel it's so necessary to insult people and be hurtful? I
wish you no ill.

I hope that someday you can heal and find peace.

BTW, when you compared me to George Bush, that was a much greater insult
and much more hurtful.

Signature

~RT

Neil Brooks - 08 Oct 2007 17:39 GMT
> In article <1191854432.605388.8...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,

> > Your HYPOCRISY, on the other hand (allow me to re-quote):
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> LOL! You just can't get a post in this thread about Dr. Granet without
> also including the words "f.cking idiot"! ROTFLMAO. Too hilarious!

Wow.

You actually don't get it, do you?  Those were YOUR WORDS.

YOU DID exactly what you're castigating ME for doing (using profanity
in the post re: Dr. Granet) ... and now you're trying to point the
finger at ME ... again.

Wow.

Careful rolling on the floor, RT.  It seems clear that there are
commensal bugs there that are getting in your ears and are, quite
likely, causing you serious harm.
Zetsu - 08 Oct 2007 17:58 GMT
> > In article <1191854432.605388.8...@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com>,
> > > Your HYPOCRISY, on the other hand (allow me to re-quote):
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> commensal bugs there that are getting in your ears and are, quite
> likely, causing you serious harm.

He only wrote those words together because he wanted you to stop using
those words; he had a valid reason and doing it for the Greater Good.
He only used it once, but you use the words all the time. That is not
a hypocrisy on his standpoint; but a failure of maturity on your
behalf.

RT has given you intelligent direction and good advise, eg. make a
website and then just give a link to it to replace the usual time
wasting rubbish you normally post as a response; but you choose to
completely disregard this and you are unable to reply to it because
you know that you won't be able to get your 'jollies' anymore if you
stop posting here words you think are 'big' and you can't feed your
egoistic desires to feel 'important' in this newsgroup like you are
the great Protector of children and their eyesight.

Any intelligent reader of this discussion can see that RT is being far
more mature and able to carry out reasoned discussion, where you are
unable to.
Neil Brooks - 08 Oct 2007 18:03 GMT
> He only wrote those words together because he wanted you to stop using
> those words; he had a valid reason and doing it for the Greater Good.

People who kill abortion doctors claim the same rationale.  Good for
you.

> Any intelligent reader of this discussion can see that RT is being far
> more mature and able to carry out reasoned discussion,

When did you meet an intelligent reader, and ... who made you their
spokesperson ... and when ... and ... for God's sake ... WHY?

Thanks.
Zetsu - 08 Oct 2007 18:13 GMT
> > He only wrote those words together because he wanted you to stop using
> > those words; he had a valid reason and doing it for the Greater Good.
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Again you evade the suggestions given to you by RT.
Why are you unable to defend yourself against it? Is it that you don't
like the idea of replacing your prattling attacks on Otis with a nice
neat webpage? Are you concerned that the people here won't be able to
read your messages and get a 'formidable impression' of you? Probably
it gives you a nice sense of security and authority?

You should try and actually respond to RT instead of trying to silence
him with some form of a smug response coupled with some kind of
'insult' that you think is clever, or hurtful.

You are also in a strange delusion of paranoia in that you have
convinced yourself RT is 'taking sides' with Otis. You should reflect
on why you have come to think in this strange way; perhaps you are
quite disturbed in the head and need counseling from a profession.
Zetsu - 08 Oct 2007 18:15 GMT
On Oct 8, 6:03 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> On Oct 8, 9:58 am, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> > He only wrote those words together because he wanted you to stop using
> > those words; he had a valid reason and doing it for the Greater Good.

> People who kill abortion doctors claim the same rationale.  Good for
> you.

> > Any intelligent reader of this discussion can see that RT is being far
> > more mature and able to carry out reasoned discussion,

> When did you meet an intelligent reader, and ... who made you their
> spokesperson ... and when ... and ... for God's sake ... WHY?

> Thanks.

Again you evade the suggestions given to you by RT.
Why are you unable to defend yourself against it? Is it that you don't
like the idea of replacing your prattling attacks on Otis with a nice
neat link to a space saving webpage? Are you concerned that the people
here won't be able to read your messages and get a 'formidable
impression' of you? It's obvious how much you love reading your
messages on this newsgroup.Probably it gives you a nice sense of
security and authority?

You should try and actually respond to RT instead of trying to silence
him with some form of a smug response coupled with some kind of
'insult' that you think is clever, or hurtful.

You are also in a strange delusion of paranoia in that you have
convinced yourself RT is 'taking sides' with Otis. You should reflect
on why you have come to think in this strange way; perhaps you are
quite disturbed in the head and need counseling from a professional.
Neil Brooks - 08 Oct 2007 18:27 GMT
> Again you evade the suggestions given to you by RT.

Kind of you to notice.

> Why are you unable to defend yourself against it?

Disinterested.  HUGE difference.

> Is it that you don't
> like the idea of replacing your prattling attacks on Otis with a nice
> neat link to a space saving webpage?

I guess I'm not interested in you or he managing my process; that's
all.

> Are you concerned that the people
> here won't be able to read your messages and get a 'formidable
> impression' of you? It's obvious how much you love reading your
> messages on this newsgroup.Probably it gives you a nice sense of
> security and authority?

It's often difficult to tell whether this is faith.vision or
alt.vision.psychobabble.

> You should try and actually respond to RT instead of trying to silence
> him with some form of a smug response coupled with some kind of
> 'insult' that you think is clever, or hurtful.

I've responded to him/her plenty.  It's simply not reciprocal ... so
it grows tiresome.

Rather like trying to communicate with Otis.

Rather like trying to communicate with you, come to think of it.

> You are also in a strange delusion of paranoia in that you have
> convinced yourself RT is 'taking sides' with Otis. You should reflect
> on why you have come to think in this strange way;

And ... you should look up the term "de facto."

> perhaps you are
> quite disturbed in the head and need counseling from a professional.

Perhaps.  I'll meditate on that.
Zetsu - 08 Oct 2007 18:44 GMT
> I've responded to him/her plenty.  It's simply not reciprocal ... so
> it grows tiresome.

Not her, him.

Well fair enough, you can shut up and not respond to him at all, that
is great with everyone. But instead you should reflect on his words
now and see that what you are doing is very insane and immature. You
should really slap yourself out of these silly delusions of grandeur;
you are not protecting anyone and no one is getting any benefit at all
from your Otis w.nking. You should wake up old man.
Dan Abel - 18 Oct 2007 17:29 GMT
> > Are you concerned that the people
> > here won't be able to read your messages and get a 'formidable
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> It's often difficult to tell whether this is faith.vision or
> alt.vision.psychobabble.

Sometimes it appears to be talk.typing.practice.
RT - 08 Oct 2007 18:01 GMT
> You actually don't get it, do you?  Those were YOUR WORDS.

Why, so they were! But you chose to include them in your post. Did you
miss the part of my post where I went onto say:

"Whether you actually type the words or cut and paste them Neil, you
perpetuate the relationship between Dr. Granet and "f.cking idiot" by
including them in your posts."

> YOU DID exactly what you're castigating ME for doing (using profanity
> in the post re: Dr. Granet) ... and now you're trying to point the
> finger at ME ... again.

Neat, huh? Once you put words out there into the cyberworld, you have no
control over how many times David Granet and f.cking idiot are going to
pop up together! Especially when you continue to quote it in your posts!
It just keeps on perpetuating itself--and each time you quote "my words"
quoting you, you keep adding to the Granet "f.cking idiot" noise.

> Careful rolling on the floor, RT.  It seems clear that there are
> commensal bugs there that are getting in your ears and are, quite
> likely, causing you serious harm.

I doubt that since the very definition of commensal is that it brings no
harm to the host... But an interesting image nonetheless.

Signature

~RT

Neil Brooks - 18 Aug 2007 18:25 GMT
On Aug 2, 10:12 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:
> Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> Thanks,

Uncle Otie?

Have you checked out this story with David Granet yet?

If not, why not?

For now, you are continually posting lies and falsehoods about me on
your personal soapbox site.

Wouldn't it be easier just to verify this one for yourself?  I mean: I
know that notion is repugnant to you, but ... couldn't you make an
exception ... just this once?

Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 19 Aug 2007 04:56 GMT
> > Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
>
> > Thanks,

Uncle Otie?

Have you checked out this story with David Granet yet?

If not, why not?

For now, you are continually posting lies and falsehoods about me on
your personal soapbox site.

Wouldn't it be easier just to verify this one for yourself?  I mean: I
know that notion is repugnant to you, but ... couldn't you make an
exception ... just this once?

Thanks.
Neil Brooks - 19 Aug 2007 16:47 GMT
> > > Dear Neil,
>
[quoted text clipped - 36 lines]
>
> Thanks.

Otis??

You don't REALLY want this one to slip by unanswered, do you?  It
seems like such a strong-side layup.  It's a Mulligan.  Even YOU can
get to the truth of this one.

Make the call, Uncle Otie.  You know it's what your myopic niece, Joy,
would WANT you to do.....
 
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.