Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
Lying a Cause of Myopia
Lying a Cause of Myopia
[...Lying a Cause of Myopia
I may claim to have discovered the fact thai telling lies is bad for
the eyes. Whatever bearing this circumstance may have upon the
universality of defects of vision, it can easily be demonstrated that
it is impossible to say what is not true, even with no intent to
deceive, or even to imagine a falsehood, without producing an error of
refraction.
If a patient can read all the small letters on the bottom line of the
test card, and either deliberately or carelessly miscalls any of them,
the retinoscope will indicate an error in refraction. In numerous
cases patients have been asked to state their ages incorrectly, or to
try to imagine that they were a year older, or a year younger, than
they actually were, and in every case when they did this the
retinoscope indicated an error of refraction. A patient twenty-five
years old had no error of refraction when he looked at a blank wall
without trying to see; but if he said he was twenty-six, or if someone
else said he was twenty-six, or if he tried to imagine that he was
twenty-six, he became myopic. The same thing happened when he stated
or tried to imagine that he was twenty-four. When he stated or
remembered the truth his vision was normal, but when he stated or
imagined an error he had an error of refraction.
Two little girl patients arrived one after the other one day, and the
first accused the second of having stopped at Huyler's for an ice-
cream soda, which she had been instructed not to do, being somewhat
too much addicted to sweets. The second denied the charge, and the
first, who had used the retinoscope and knew what it did to people who
told lies, said
"Do take the retinoscope and find out."
"I followed the suggestion, and having thrown the light into the
second child's eyes, I asked:
"Did you go to Huyler's?"
"Yes," was the response, and the retinoscope indicated no error of
refraction.
"Did you have an ice-cream soda?"
"No," Said the child; but the tell-tale shadow moved in a direction
opposite to that of the mirror, showing that she had become myopic and
was not telling the truth.
The child blushed when I told her this and acknowledged that the
retinoscope was right, for she had heard of the ways of the uncanny
instrument before and did not know what else it might do to her if she
said anything more that was not true.
The fact is that it requires an effort to state what is not true, and
this effort always results in a deviation from the normal in the
refraction of the eye. So sensitive is the test that if the subject,
whether his vision is ordinarily normal, or not, pronounces the
initials of his name correctly while looking at a blank surface
without trying to see, there will be no error of refraction; but if he
miscalls one initial, even without any consciousness of effort, and
with full knowledge that he is deceiving no one, myopia will be
produced...]
- Dr. W. H. Bates, September 1919
[...Lying a Cause of Myopia
I may claim to have discovered the fact thai telling lies is bad for
the eyes. Whatever bearing this circumstance may have upon the
universality of defects of vision, it can easily be demonstrated that
it is impossible to say what is not true, even with no intent to
deceive, or even to imagine a falsehood, without producing an error of
refraction.
If a patient can read all the small letters on the bottom line of the
test card, and either deliberately or carelessly miscalls any of them,
the retinoscope will indicate an error in refraction. In numerous
cases patients have been asked to state their ages incorrectly, or to
try to imagine that they were a year older, or a year younger, than
they actually were, and in every case when they did this the
retinoscope indicated an error of refraction. A patient twenty-five
years old had no error of refraction when he looked at a blank wall
without trying to see; but if he said he was twenty-six, or if someone
else said he was twenty-six, or if he tried to imagine that he was
twenty-six, he became myopic. The same thing happened when he stated
or tried to imagine that he was twenty-four. When he stated or
remembered the truth his vision was normal, but when he stated or
imagined an error he had an error of refraction.
Two little girl patients arrived one after the other one day, and the
first accused the second of having stopped at Huyler's for an ice-
cream soda, which she had been instructed not to do, being somewhat
too much addicted to sweets. The second denied the charge, and the
first, who had used the retinoscope and knew what it did to people who
told lies, said
"Do take the retinoscope and find out."
"I followed the suggestion, and having thrown the light into the
second child's eyes, I asked:
"Did you go to Huyler's?"
"Yes," was the response, and the retinoscope indicated no error of
refraction.
"Did you have an ice-cream soda?"
"No," Said the child; but the tell-tale shadow moved in a direction
opposite to that of the mirror, showing that she had become myopic and
was not telling the truth.
The child blushed when I told her this and acknowledged that the
retinoscope was right, for she had heard of the ways of the uncanny
instrument before and did not know what else it might do to her if she
said anything more that was not true.
The fact is that it requires an effort to state what is not true, and
this effort always results in a deviation from the normal in the
refraction of the eye. So sensitive is the test that if the subject,
whether his vision is ordinarily normal, or not, pronounces the
initials of his name correctly while looking at a blank surface
without trying to see, there will be no error of refraction; but if he
miscalls one initial, even without any consciousness of effort, and
with full knowledge that he is deceiving no one, myopia will be
produced...]
- Dr. W. H. Bates, September 1919
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
Zetsu schreef:
> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
>
> I may claim to have discovered the fact thai telling lies is bad for
> the eyes. Whatever bearing this circumstance may have upon the
> universality of defects of vision, it can easily be demonstrated that
> it is impossible to say what is not true, even with no intent to
> deceive, or even to imagine a falsehood, without producing an error of
> refraction.
>
> - Dr. W. H. Bates, September 1919
You just discovered the top secret "lie detector" of the FBI.
Keep it a secret.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Zetsu schreef:
> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
>
> I may claim to have discovered the fact thai telling lies is bad for
> the eyes. Whatever bearing this circumstance may have upon the
> universality of defects of vision, it can easily be demonstrated that
> it is impossible to say what is not true, even with no intent to
> deceive, or even to imagine a falsehood, without producing an error of
> refraction.
>
> - Dr. W. H. Bates, September 1919
You just discovered the top secret "lie detector" of the FBI.
Keep it a secret.
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
Zetsu wrote:
> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Zetsu wrote:
> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
>
> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
animals, please be aware of this. Humans are given higher intelligence
and free will, and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good. I do not
think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
what Bates is talking about in this article.
On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
>
> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
animals, please be aware of this. Humans are given higher intelligence
and free will, and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good. I do not
think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
what Bates is talking about in this article.
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
Zetsu wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
>> Zetsu wrote:
>>> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
>> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
>> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pramesh Rutaji
>>
>> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
>
> Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
> humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
> relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
> Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
> animals, please be aware of this.
This is where you are completely wrong. Research uses animals all the
time and there are significant similarities. Humans and bonobo chimps
for example have 98 percent identical DNA and make almost all the same
proteins and participate in most of the same chemical reactions
including emotions and deception on purpose.
>
Humans are given higher intelligence
> and free will,
Free will is a debating point especially since no one "gave" it to us,
not even casper the friendly ghost.
>
and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
> price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good.
This is not a "religious" issue. There is no good or evil but degrees
for self interest that depends on time frame and group dynamics.
>
I do not
> think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
> the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
> secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
> integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
> their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
>
> In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
> intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
> what Bates is talking about in this article.
Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
adoration without critical evaluation.
I'm very open to current medical eye practices having significant
treatment/knowledge errors, some merely created by the way social groups
and profit motives work, but I'm not open to bates having discovered all
or some truth about human optics that should be worshiped for all time.
Aging is a fact of existence and correcting aspects of it is not merely
having the correct "outlook" on life. You're so obsessed with bates
that you ought to call him god-bates or maybe "master-bates".
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Zetsu wrote:
> On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
>> Zetsu wrote:
>>> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
>> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
>> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>>
>> --
>>
>> Pramesh Rutaji
>>
>> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
>
> Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
> humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
> relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
> Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
> animals, please be aware of this.
This is where you are completely wrong. Research uses animals all the
time and there are significant similarities. Humans and bonobo chimps
for example have 98 percent identical DNA and make almost all the same
proteins and participate in most of the same chemical reactions
including emotions and deception on purpose.
>
Humans are given higher intelligence
> and free will,
Free will is a debating point especially since no one "gave" it to us,
not even casper the friendly ghost.
>
and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
> price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good.
This is not a "religious" issue. There is no good or evil but degrees
for self interest that depends on time frame and group dynamics.
>
I do not
> think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
> the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
> secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
> integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
> their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
>
> In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
> intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
> what Bates is talking about in this article.
Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
adoration without critical evaluation.
I'm very open to current medical eye practices having significant
treatment/knowledge errors, some merely created by the way social groups
and profit motives work, but I'm not open to bates having discovered all
or some truth about human optics that should be worshiped for all time.
Aging is a fact of existence and correcting aspects of it is not merely
having the correct "outlook" on life. You're so obsessed with bates
that you ought to call him god-bates or maybe "master-bates".
--
Pramesh Rutaji
p297tongue6221@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
Dear Pramesh Rutaji
Subject: Agreement first -- then evaluate.
I like your style. Light, reasonable -- in face of a difficult
problem.
After a long review -- I agree that OBJECTING to that minus
constitutes
the second-opinion.
Thus Bates (and others who are IGNORED) had a number of ideas
for PREVENTION (NOT CURE!!!)
Thus if we would restrict Bates to what he FIRST physically ATTEMPTED
TO DO -- we
might do better.
He spent 10 years attempting to get kids to read their Snellens.
(1903 to 1913).
He wrote up some papers -- but did little more than that. Thus in my
opinion he made a start FOR PREVENTION.
Also, in my opinion after 1913 he got "carried away", and started
making
"claims". I think these "claims" in just plain KILLED what was a
reasonable
start.
But equally, there were other "medical" OBJECTORS (call them second-
opinion
PREVENTER) who had the same idea.
But all of these concepts (it must be recognized) depend, not on ANY
"prescribing authority),
but rather on the insight and MOTIVATION of the person himself.
And that will depend on the who the person is, an how strongly he
wishes to AVOID
entry into a negative refractive STATE.
Thus he must not regard himself as a "patient" but as an intelligent
person who
is willing to study the issues, and learn WHAT previously has been
successful -- and does he wish to follow a PREVENTIVE protocol.
So far -- NO STEPS have been taken in that direction -- AT ALL.
But you have touched on the issues that PREVENT even these
first steps.
Just my second-opinion,
On Apr 19, 1:14 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> >> Zetsu wrote:
> >>> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
> >> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
> >> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> >> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
>
> > Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
> > humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
> > relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
> > Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
> > animals, please be aware of this.
>
> This is where you are completely wrong. Research uses animals all the
> time and there are significant similarities. Humans and bonobo chimps
> for example have 98 percent identical DNA and make almost all the same
> proteins and participate in most of the same chemical reactions
> including emotions and deception on purpose.
>
> >
> Humans are given higher intelligence
>
> > and free will,
>
> Free will is a debating point especially since no one "gave" it to us,
> not even casper the friendly ghost.
>
> >
> and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
>
> > price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good.
>
> This is not a "religious" issue. There is no good or evil but degrees
> for self interest that depends on time frame and group dynamics.
>
> >
> I do not
>
> > think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
> > the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
> > secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
> > integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
> > their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
>
> > In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
> > intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
> > what Bates is talking about in this article.
>
> Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
> all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
> although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
> mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
> seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
> adoration without critical evaluation.
>
> I'm very open to current medical eye practices having significant
> treatment/knowledge errors, some merely created by the way social groups
> and profit motives work, but I'm not open to bates having discovered all
> or some truth about human optics that should be worshiped for all time.
>
> Aging is a fact of existence and correcting aspects of it is not merely
> having the correct "outlook" on life. You're so obsessed with bates
> that you ought to call him god-bates or maybe "master-bates".
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Dear Pramesh Rutaji
Subject: Agreement first -- then evaluate.
I like your style. Light, reasonable -- in face of a difficult
problem.
After a long review -- I agree that OBJECTING to that minus
constitutes
the second-opinion.
Thus Bates (and others who are IGNORED) had a number of ideas
for PREVENTION (NOT CURE!!!)
Thus if we would restrict Bates to what he FIRST physically ATTEMPTED
TO DO -- we
might do better.
He spent 10 years attempting to get kids to read their Snellens.
(1903 to 1913).
He wrote up some papers -- but did little more than that. Thus in my
opinion he made a start FOR PREVENTION.
Also, in my opinion after 1913 he got "carried away", and started
making
"claims". I think these "claims" in just plain KILLED what was a
reasonable
start.
But equally, there were other "medical" OBJECTORS (call them second-
opinion
PREVENTER) who had the same idea.
But all of these concepts (it must be recognized) depend, not on ANY
"prescribing authority),
but rather on the insight and MOTIVATION of the person himself.
And that will depend on the who the person is, an how strongly he
wishes to AVOID
entry into a negative refractive STATE.
Thus he must not regard himself as a "patient" but as an intelligent
person who
is willing to study the issues, and learn WHAT previously has been
successful -- and does he wish to follow a PREVENTIVE protocol.
So far -- NO STEPS have been taken in that direction -- AT ALL.
But you have touched on the issues that PREVENT even these
first steps.
Just my second-opinion,
On Apr 19, 1:14 pm, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> >> Zetsu wrote:
> >>> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
> >> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
> >> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> >> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
>
> > Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
> > humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
> > relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
> > Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
> > animals, please be aware of this.
>
> This is where you are completely wrong. Research uses animals all the
> time and there are significant similarities. Humans and bonobo chimps
> for example have 98 percent identical DNA and make almost all the same
> proteins and participate in most of the same chemical reactions
> including emotions and deception on purpose.
>
> >
> Humans are given higher intelligence
>
> > and free will,
>
> Free will is a debating point especially since no one "gave" it to us,
> not even casper the friendly ghost.
>
> >
> and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
>
> > price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good.
>
> This is not a "religious" issue. There is no good or evil but degrees
> for self interest that depends on time frame and group dynamics.
>
> >
> I do not
>
> > think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
> > the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
> > secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
> > integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
> > their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
>
> > In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
> > intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
> > what Bates is talking about in this article.
>
> Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
> all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
> although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
> mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
> seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
> adoration without critical evaluation.
>
> I'm very open to current medical eye practices having significant
> treatment/knowledge errors, some merely created by the way social groups
> and profit motives work, but I'm not open to bates having discovered all
> or some truth about human optics that should be worshiped for all time.
>
> Aging is a fact of existence and correcting aspects of it is not merely
> having the correct "outlook" on life. You're so obsessed with bates
> that you ought to call him god-bates or maybe "master-bates".
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
On Apr 19, 11:10 am, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> Subject: Agreement first -- then evaluate.
>
> I like your style. Light, reasonable -- in face of a difficult
> problem.
>
> After a long review -- I agree that OBJECTING to that minus
> constitutes
> the second-opinion.
Agree?
You "agree??"
With whom do you agree?
With yourself, of course.
This is where you PRETEND somebody said it ... as you do very often,
with many things, and then agree or disagree, according to your
fancy. You ... constantly ... put ... words ... in ... other ...
people's ... mouths.
It's blatantly intellectually dishonest.
In fact, it's probably among the top 10 reasons why I so correctly
point out that you're (an absolute fucking idiot and) a pathological
liar.
Wow.
On Apr 19, 11:10 am, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
> Subject: Agreement first -- then evaluate.
>
> I like your style. Light, reasonable -- in face of a difficult
> problem.
>
> After a long review -- I agree that OBJECTING to that minus
> constitutes
> the second-opinion.
Agree?
You "agree??"
With whom do you agree?
With yourself, of course.
This is where you PRETEND somebody said it ... as you do very often,
with many things, and then agree or disagree, according to your
fancy. You ... constantly ... put ... words ... in ... other ...
people's ... mouths.
It's blatantly intellectually dishonest.
In fact, it's probably among the top 10 reasons why I so correctly
point out that you're (an absolute fucking idiot and) a pathological
liar.
Wow.
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
On Apr 19, 3:33 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:10 am, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
>
> > Subject: Agreement first -- then evaluate.
>
> > I like your style. Light, reasonable -- in face of a difficult
> > problem.
>
> > After a long review -- I agree that OBJECTING to that minus
> > constitutes
> > the second-opinion.
>
> Agree?
>
> You "agree??"
>
> With whom do you agree?
>
> With yourself, of course.
>
> This is where you PRETEND somebody said it ... as you do very often,
> with many things, and then agree or disagree, according to your
> fancy. You ... constantly ... put ... words ... in ... other ...
> people's ... mouths.
>
> It's blatantly intellectually dishonest.
>
> In fact, it's probably among the top 10 reasons why I so correctly
> point out that you're (an absolute fucking idiot and) a pathological
> liar.
>
> Wow.
By the way ... although the sample size here IS exactly one, and
although correlation does NOT equal causation ... Otis Brown IS both a
pathological liar and a high myope.
It makes one wonder.....
On Apr 19, 3:33 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo,com > wrote:
> On Apr 19, 11:10 am, otisbr...@embarqmail,com wrote:
>
> > Subject: Agreement first -- then evaluate.
>
> > I like your style. Light, reasonable -- in face of a difficult
> > problem.
>
> > After a long review -- I agree that OBJECTING to that minus
> > constitutes
> > the second-opinion.
>
> Agree?
>
> You "agree??"
>
> With whom do you agree?
>
> With yourself, of course.
>
> This is where you PRETEND somebody said it ... as you do very often,
> with many things, and then agree or disagree, according to your
> fancy. You ... constantly ... put ... words ... in ... other ...
> people's ... mouths.
>
> It's blatantly intellectually dishonest.
>
> In fact, it's probably among the top 10 reasons why I so correctly
> point out that you're (an absolute fucking idiot and) a pathological
> liar.
>
> Wow.
By the way ... although the sample size here IS exactly one, and
although correlation does NOT equal causation ... Otis Brown IS both a
pathological liar and a high myope.
It makes one wonder.....
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
On 19 Apr, 18:14, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> >> Zetsu wrote:
> >>> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
> >> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
> >> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> >> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
>
> > Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
> > humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
> > relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
> > Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
> > animals, please be aware of this.
>
> This is where you are completely wrong. Research uses animals all the
> time and there are significant similarities. Humans and bonobo chimps
> for example have 98 percent identical DNA and make almost all the same
> proteins and participate in most of the same chemical reactions
> including emotions and deception on purpose.
>
> >
> Humans are given higher intelligence
>
> > and free will,
>
> Free will is a debating point especially since no one "gave" it to us,
> not even casper the friendly ghost.
>
> >
> and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
>
> > price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good.
>
> This is not a "religious" issue. There is no good or evil but degrees
> for self interest that depends on time frame and group dynamics.
>
> >
> I do not
>
> > think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
> > the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
> > secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
> > integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
> > their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
>
> > In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
> > intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
> > what Bates is talking about in this article.
>
> Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
> all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
> although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
> mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
> seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
> adoration without critical evaluation.
>
> I'm very open to current medical eye practices having significant
> treatment/knowledge errors, some merely created by the way social groups
> and profit motives work, but I'm not open to bates having discovered all
> or some truth about human optics that should be worshiped for all time.
>
> Aging is a fact of existence and correcting aspects of it is not merely
> having the correct "outlook" on life. You're so obsessed with bates
> that you ought to call him god-bates or maybe "master-bates".
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Pramesh,
I appreciate your critisisms, and will try to take what you say into
account.
I do not believe Bates was infallible (no human ever is) but I do
think he was a very intelligent and observant scientist who has made
timeless discoveries in curing imperfect sight that can be studied and
applied for many years to come and will prevent and relieve much
ocular disfunction and suffering when used intelligently.
If you wish to kill file me, then please do so, as there is no loss to
me.
On 19 Apr, 18:14, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> Zetsu wrote:
> > On 19 Apr, 07:52, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com > wrote:
> >> Zetsu wrote:
> >>> [...Lying a Cause of Myopia
> >> Funny, very funny. Deception is part of the natural order of the animal
> >> kingdom and you don't find vision problems attributed thereto.
>
> >> --
>
> >> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> >> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
>
> > Like Otis Brown, engineer, you erroneously assume that animals and
> > humans are alike, and therefore all characteristics of vision in
> > relation to mind and body and environment operate in like manner.
> > Humans are very different and you cannot compare them with lower
> > animals, please be aware of this.
>
> This is where you are completely wrong. Research uses animals all the
> time and there are significant similarities. Humans and bonobo chimps
> for example have 98 percent identical DNA and make almost all the same
> proteins and participate in most of the same chemical reactions
> including emotions and deception on purpose.
>
> >
> Humans are given higher intelligence
>
> > and free will,
>
> Free will is a debating point especially since no one "gave" it to us,
> not even casper the friendly ghost.
>
> >
> and with this comes both an advantage and a price, the
>
> > price being that it can be used for evil as opposed to good.
>
> This is not a "religious" issue. There is no good or evil but degrees
> for self interest that depends on time frame and group dynamics.
>
> >
> I do not
>
> > think any animal is evil because they do not have free will, in that
> > the deception and tricks played between predator and prey, in order to
> > secure one's meal or to escape from being a meal, is merely a part
> > integral to their very nature, therefore there is no falsehood in
> > their mind, no real intention to 'deceive' as we humans use the word.
>
> > In short, their deception is natural, whereas a human's deception is
> > intellectual. You must realize the difference in order to understand
> > what Bates is talking about in this article.
>
> Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
> all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
> although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
> mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
> seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
> adoration without critical evaluation.
>
> I'm very open to current medical eye practices having significant
> treatment/knowledge errors, some merely created by the way social groups
> and profit motives work, but I'm not open to bates having discovered all
> or some truth about human optics that should be worshiped for all time.
>
> Aging is a fact of existence and correcting aspects of it is not merely
> having the correct "outlook" on life. You're so obsessed with bates
> that you ought to call him god-bates or maybe "master-bates".
>
> --
>
> Pramesh Rutaji
>
> p297tongue6...@newsguy,com - remove tongue to reply
Pramesh,
I appreciate your critisisms, and will try to take what you say into
account.
I do not believe Bates was infallible (no human ever is) but I do
think he was a very intelligent and observant scientist who has made
timeless discoveries in curing imperfect sight that can be studied and
applied for many years to come and will prevent and relieve much
ocular disfunction and suffering when used intelligently.
If you wish to kill file me, then please do so, as there is no loss to
me.
Re: Lying a Cause of Myopia
On Apr 19, 10:14 am, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com >
wrote:
> Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
> all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
> although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
> mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
> seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
> adoration without critical evaluation.
Well ... if nothing else, Pramesh, you ARE a quick study ;-)
On Apr 19, 10:14 am, Pramesh Rutaji <p297tongue6...@newsguy,com >
wrote:
> Firstly, I didn't read the article and am tempted to start filtering out
> all discussion that you initiate. I'm not inclined to worship anyone
> although I give bates the credit of having existed as opposed to being a
> mythological creation created to manipulate people via religion. You
> seem to think that bates was inerrant and his every word worthy of
> adoration without critical evaluation.
Well ... if nothing else, Pramesh, you ARE a quick study ;-)
Next: Woman with Ocular Albinism
Previous: Lenscrafter: New Glasses, 1.67 index, red edges, hard to focus
