For Neil Brooks,

Subject: RT's advice to you -- to set up your own "page".

You have your own personal site. Rather that calling
everyone a F. I. who argues with you -- why not provide some
POSITIVE PROOF that a -3 diopter lens has NO EFFECT on the refractive
STATE of the fundamental eye.

Neil> The dozen (+/-) that he HAS hurt were ALL children (under the
age of 18).

RT> Who are these children?

RT> Why don't you make a webpage or compose a posting in response to
Otis that reveals the dangers of what he is saying and that offers
what you believe to be factually correct and
safe information.

Otis> That is indeed what layman-Brooks should be doing. That way the
inpartial reader can determine how Brooks reached his conclusion as an
poorly informed layman. Calling everyon a F. I. is NOT how you conduct
a scientific argument about the dynamic nature of the natural eye (in
terms of
refractive STATE).

RT> In general, I don't think you give most people enough credit
to see that what he says is contrary to current medical
thinking.

RT> He, himself, says he's espousing an alternative method.

RT> Besides the fact that his writing is almost incomprehensible and
rife with spelling errors and typos, why do you think calling him a
f.cking idiot over and over is going to help unsuspecting children and
their parents not fall prey to
him?

Otis> Excellent RT. Now is the time for Layman-Brooks to start
doing some REAL scientific work, rather than sitting on his
a.s typing F. I. to everyone here who ask him questions.