I am not supportive of the idea to continue arguing with Otis, whether
factually, scientifically or personally.  If anything, I find the
ongoing arguments a source of entertaiment and amusement in the midst
of my personal struggle to retain vision in light of my deteriorating
retinal health.  True, somethimes I just can't resist jumping into the
hillarious discussion due to my sarcastic tendencies and satirical
natural talents [even Quasimodo had to admit that I am funny :-) ],
but otherwise I find the whole argument with an unimportant ignoramo
totally senseless...

But what I have read today from Otis is different.  Assuming that he
is not severely retarded and not yet suffering from a complete
dimentia, there is no escape from the conclusion that he is criminally
fraudulent in the legal sense, i.e. that he KNOWS that he is lying but
yet does it with the intention to defraud others.

Here is what he has written recently:

To: Myopiafree2@yahoogroups.com
From: "Otis S. Brown" <otisbrown@pa.net>
Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 03:01:50 -0000
Subject: [Myopiafree2] A clear statement of the majority-opinion.

Remarks by majority-opinion Dr. "Catman" Grant,
that PREVENTING a negative refractive STATE
is IMPOSSIBLE.

Layman> ...into the state of the art and what works. I also like to
see some researchers post here. I'd like to see what innovative
research is...

Grant> You came to the wrong place sweety. Researchers wouldn't
waste their time with your crap. You want some answers, but you ain't
got the guts to listen or read them.

Grant> There is no prevention. How stupid are you? Shall I repeat,
THERE IS NO SOLUTION ... NO PREVENTION.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[If you recall, this conversation was re a "laymen's question" about
possible prevention of PVD (posterior vitreous detachment).  Grant's
response, though impatient and somewhat rude, related to that question
and NOTHING ELSE.  But look how Otis distorts it with a fraudulent
intent -- please read his masterpiece below --]

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

i.e., you can not avoid entry into a negative refractive
STATE for the natural eye!!!!

I can agree that ONCE YOU START WEARING AN OVER-PRESCRIBED
MINUS LENS -- you can not get out of it.

But Grant argues (against science and the facts) that
YOU CAN NOT AVOID ENTRY INTO A NEGATIVE REFRACTIVE
STATE.

The statements by Dr. Colgate, Mike (who cleared
his vision from -2.75 diopters (20/200) to
DMV normal IS TOTALLY IGNORED BY Catman Grant.

Why, because of his arrogance and intellectual
blindness towards the proven dynamic behavior
of the fundamental eye.

I think that the person should ask his OD,
to determine his "attitude", if a -3 diopter
lens has an effect on the refractive STATE
of the natural eye.

If Catman Grant, insists that "a -3 diopter lens
has no effect on the eye -- you had better
find an OD who will state that, yes, the
natural eye will change it refractive STATE
by -2 diopters in less than six months AS
A NATURAL PROCESS.

The issue is the person's preception of the scientiric
facts -- that are objectively ignored by Catman Grant.

Draw your own conclusions -- on the basis of scientific
fact, and not on Grants fuss and bluster.

Otis