Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to group Search:
Post Subject:
How to perform retinoscopy
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
miserable life!
Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
miserable life!
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> miserable life!
His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
Plus lenses for myopia, which will make it even worse
Pin-hole glasses, which have no benefit whatsoever
Exercises for myopia; legitimate orthoptics is only justfied for
amblyopia and strabismus
His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> miserable life!
His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
Plus lenses for myopia, which will make it even worse
Pin-hole glasses, which have no benefit whatsoever
Exercises for myopia; legitimate orthoptics is only justfied for
amblyopia and strabismus
His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > miserable life!
>
> His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
messaging'.
>
> His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
Well, it's a long story.
But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > miserable life!
>
> His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
messaging'.
>
> His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
Well, it's a long story.
But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > miserable life!
>
> > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> messaging'.
>
>
>
> > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> Well, it's a long story.
> But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
arrogant and stupid.
On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > miserable life!
>
> > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> messaging'.
>
>
>
> > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> Well, it's a long story.
> But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
arrogant and stupid.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > miserable life!
>
> > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > messaging'.
>
> > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > Well, it's a long story.
> > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> arrogant and stupid.
Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.
On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > miserable life!
>
> > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > messaging'.
>
> > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > Well, it's a long story.
> > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> arrogant and stupid.
Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > messaging'.
>
> > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > arrogant and stupid.
>
> Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
now what?
On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > messaging'.
>
> > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > arrogant and stupid.
>
> Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
now what?
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> now what?
Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
remember that blurriness for later on.
Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
minutes. Then open your eyes.
Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
clearer doesn't it?
YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
until your cured!
Well, that's the fundamental principle.
On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> now what?
Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
remember that blurriness for later on.
Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
minutes. Then open your eyes.
Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
clearer doesn't it?
YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
until your cured!
Well, that's the fundamental principle.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> > now what?
>
> Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
> remember that blurriness for later on.
>
> Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
> rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
> better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
> that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
> try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
> with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
> think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
> of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
> mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
> minutes. Then open your eyes.
>
> Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
> back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
> clearer doesn't it?
>
> YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
> until your cured!
> Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
alot better, doesn't it. And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,
because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,
thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
-3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.
On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> > now what?
>
> Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
> remember that blurriness for later on.
>
> Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
> rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
> better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
> that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
> try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
> with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
> think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
> of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
> mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
> minutes. Then open your eyes.
>
> Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
> back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
> clearer doesn't it?
>
> YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
> until your cured!
> Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
alot better, doesn't it. And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,
because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,
thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
-3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On 2 May, 06:28, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > > > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > > > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > > > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > > > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > > > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > > > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > > > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > > > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> > > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> > > now what?
>
> > Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
> > remember that blurriness for later on.
>
> > Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
> > rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
> > better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
> > that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
> > try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
> > with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
> > think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
> > of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
> > mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
> > minutes. Then open your eyes.
>
> > Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
> > back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
> > clearer doesn't it?
>
> > YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
> > until your cured!
> > Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
> alot better, doesn't it.
EXACTLY! BANG ON! SIMPLE!
And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,
> because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,
'Rest' isn't the same thing as 'accomodation'. Don't associate the
word rest with 'focus' or accomodating or diverging or converging or
optical infinty or whatever. They are completely different in
totality!
> thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
> -3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
> them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.
Hmm, well it's hard at first I can tell you. But you'll be surprised
how much easier it gets once you are accustomed to seeing without
glasses. And that will automatically bring about improvement (without
any action on your part). Then when you start to practice Bates, and
the magic of a mind at rest starts to kick in, you'll see double
improvements!
On 2 May, 06:28, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
> On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > > > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > > > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > > > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > > > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > > > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > > > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > > > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > > > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> > > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> > > now what?
>
> > Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
> > remember that blurriness for later on.
>
> > Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
> > rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
> > better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
> > that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
> > try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
> > with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
> > think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
> > of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
> > mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
> > minutes. Then open your eyes.
>
> > Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
> > back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
> > clearer doesn't it?
>
> > YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
> > until your cured!
> > Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
> alot better, doesn't it.
EXACTLY! BANG ON! SIMPLE!
And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,
> because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,
'Rest' isn't the same thing as 'accomodation'. Don't associate the
word rest with 'focus' or accomodating or diverging or converging or
optical infinty or whatever. They are completely different in
totality!
> thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
> -3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
> them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.
Hmm, well it's hard at first I can tell you. But you'll be surprised
how much easier it gets once you are accustomed to seeing without
glasses. And that will automatically bring about improvement (without
any action on your part). Then when you start to practice Bates, and
the magic of a mind at rest starts to kick in, you'll see double
improvements!
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 10:32 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 06:28, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > > > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > > > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > > > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > > > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > > > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > > > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > > > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > > > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > > > > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > > > > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > > > > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > > > > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > > > > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > > > > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > > > > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > > > > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> > > > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> > > > now what?
>
> > > Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
> > > remember that blurriness for later on.
>
> > > Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
> > > rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
> > > better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
> > > that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
> > > try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
> > > with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
> > > think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
> > > of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
> > > mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
> > > minutes. Then open your eyes.
>
> > > Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
> > > back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
> > > clearer doesn't it?
>
> > > YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
> > > until your cured!
> > > Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
> > alot better, doesn't it.
>
> EXACTLY! BANG ON! SIMPLE!
>
> And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,
>
> > because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,
>
> 'Rest' isn't the same thing as 'accomodation'. Don't associate the
> word rest with 'focus' or accomodating or diverging or converging or
> optical infinty or whatever. They are completely different in
> totality!
>
> > thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
> > -3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
> > them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.
>
> Hmm, well it's hard at first I can tell you. But you'll be surprised
> how much easier it gets once you are accustomed to seeing without
> glasses. And that will automatically bring about improvement (without
> any action on your part). Then when you start to practice Bates, and
> the magic of a mind at rest starts to kick in, you'll see double
> improvements!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had to do that when Atlantis Eyecare fucked up my prescription so
much that I had to turn them upside-down to even see slightly more
clearly. Damn them and their computer system to hell. They never
entered our appt., even though two weeks before they said "Oh yes,
your appt.'s for 12:00". This happened several times. They also
apparently fired every one of their ODs, so things were even more
screwy But now I go to Hertzog Eye Associates --or is it Hertzog Eye
Care--, and all is well; I'm good friends w/ Dr Darcy C. Ryan, OD, my
optometrist, and Dr Leif M. Hertzog, MD, me and my internist's
ophthalmologist. http :// www .hertzogeyecare,com /about us.htm. I've
never had 20/20 in my left eye, and 20/40 --Dres Hertzog and Ryan said
that's the maximum m right eye can be corrected to, by any method-- in
my right eye. God bless them!
On May 1, 10:32 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
> On 2 May, 06:28, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On May 1, 10:19 pm, Zetsu <lite...@googlemail,com > wrote:
>
> > > On 2 May, 06:06, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > On May 1, 10:02 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 2 May, 05:59, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On May 1, 9:55 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 2 May, 05:49, douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On May 1, 9:32 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail,com > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > Ignore Neil! He's just a long term resident here who likes to spend
> > > > > > > > > the majority of his time poking incessant taunts to another resident
> > > > > > > > > called Otis Brown. He hasn't even got anything better to do with his
> > > > > > > > > miserable life!
>
> > > > > > > > His hatred for Otis Brown is *well* justified; Otis Brown believes in
> > > > > > > > dangerous, obsolete, harmful techniques such as:
>
> > > > > > > It probably is justified, I agree that Otis isn't the best source of
> > > > > > > vision advice, but there's no need to take it public and make a
> > > > > > > condumdrum. He can use other functions of internet, hint 'private
> > > > > > > messaging'.
>
> > > > > > > > His hatred for you I don't understand. Is it b/c you're 16? I'm 16,
> > > > > > > > and he isn't trying to get *me* off the forum.
>
> > > > > > > Well, it's a long story.
> > > > > > > But basically I'm what they call a 'Bates Believer' and these guys
> > > > > > > don't like it. Well, it's a long argument and just search back in the
> > > > > > > archives of SMV and you can see what I mean!
>
> > > > > > Well, have you tried it? Did it provide a noticible effect, for you?
> > > > > > Then, did it provide the results you were seeking on a triple-blind
> > > > > > study of a random group of people in a controlled randomized trial? If
> > > > > > so, then your belief is justified, if not, then it's not. Use evidence-
> > > > > > based medicine, baby! But you can believe whatever you want. As long
> > > > > > as the Bates method works for you, is all I care about. But people
> > > > > > like Otis who think it's the only method to correct myopia, are
> > > > > > arrogant and stupid.
>
> > > > > Actually, the method Otis advocates has nothing to do with Bates. It's
> > > > > something completely different, plus lenses, which Bates is totally
> > > > > against (in fact he's against any form of eyeglasses).
>
> > > > > I haven't done the triple blind studies yet but when I get older I
> > > > > will. Then we will get the nobel prize. I know I sound like a quack
> > > > > but I know for sure the Bates system works. There is no doubt. I can
> > > > > prove it to you in a few seconds actually! You just have to take off
> > > > > your eyeglasses (if you have any) and follow my quick directions.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > Sure. Specs off --although now I have to almost press my face up
> > > > against my LCD now; I'm a -3.75d in my non-amblyopic (working) eye--,
> > > > now what?
>
> > > Cool. Now look at a letter somewhere that you see it blurry. Right,
> > > remember that blurriness for later on.
>
> > > Now, close your eyes. Keep them shut for 2 minutes. Do you feel a bit
> > > rested? Now open your eyes, and you might see things a tiny little bit
> > > better than before. So there we have it, rest improves the vision. But
> > > that's not a clear and distinct improvement, huh? Well no problem, now
> > > try this. Do the same thing closing your eyes, but this time cup them
> > > with your palms. Now remember that slight feeling of rest before, and
> > > think of a letter like it was just freshly printed in an intense shade
> > > of black. Don't try to focus on it, but just let it float into your
> > > mind just normally as it should do. This time keep going for 5
> > > minutes. Then open your eyes.
>
> > > Flash that letter (take a quick glance without letting the strain come
> > > back and then shut your eyes again) that you looked at earlier. Looks
> > > clearer doesn't it?
>
> > > YOU HAVE DEMONSTRATED THAT REST IMPROVES THE SIGHT! Now keep doing it
> > > until your cured!
> > > Well, that's the fundamental principle.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > Well yes, it's called...eyestrain! Not having eyestrain makes things
> > alot better, doesn't it.
>
> EXACTLY! BANG ON! SIMPLE!
>
> And, I rest my eyes by taking off my glasses,
>
> > because it let's my eyes focus at optical infinity --ie not at all--,
>
> 'Rest' isn't the same thing as 'accomodation'. Don't associate the
> word rest with 'focus' or accomodating or diverging or converging or
> optical infinty or whatever. They are completely different in
> totality!
>
> > thus relaxing my ciliary muscles. Hoever, I'm such a severe myope --
> > -3.75D left, --12.50D right-- that I can't function w/o my specs...w/o
> > them, I'd bet hit by a car, or run into ta telephone pole.
>
> Hmm, well it's hard at first I can tell you. But you'll be surprised
> how much easier it gets once you are accustomed to seeing without
> glasses. And that will automatically bring about improvement (without
> any action on your part). Then when you start to practice Bates, and
> the magic of a mind at rest starts to kick in, you'll see double
> improvements!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
I had to do that when Atlantis Eyecare fucked up my prescription so
much that I had to turn them upside-down to even see slightly more
clearly. Damn them and their computer system to hell. They never
entered our appt., even though two weeks before they said "Oh yes,
your appt.'s for 12:00". This happened several times. They also
apparently fired every one of their ODs, so things were even more
screwy But now I go to Hertzog Eye Associates --or is it Hertzog Eye
Care--, and all is well; I'm good friends w/ Dr Darcy C. Ryan, OD, my
optometrist, and Dr Leif M. Hertzog, MD, me and my internist's
ophthalmologist. http :// www .hertzogeyecare,com /about us.htm. I've
never had 20/20 in my left eye, and 20/40 --Dres Hertzog and Ryan said
that's the maximum m right eye can be corrected to, by any method-- in
my right eye. God bless them!
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com >
wrote in
<news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups,com >:
>
> Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
> postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
> Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
> internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
> a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
> definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
> fictional --merely shares my name--
Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.
> consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
> instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
> recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
> Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
> And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
> tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?
That question has already been answered.
> And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
> "Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
> way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
> long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
> outranks FRCS.
Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.
> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
> answer this.
No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
--
- Nic.
On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com >
wrote in
<news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups,com >:
>
> Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
> postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
> Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
> internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
> a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
> definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
> fictional --merely shares my name--
Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.
> consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
> instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
> recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
> Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
> And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
> tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?
That question has already been answered.
> And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
> "Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
> way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
> long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
> outranks FRCS.
Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
not, I thought it may have been some local custom.
> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
> answer this.
No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
--
- Nic.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com >
> wrote in
> <news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups,com >:
>
>
>
> > Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
> > postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
> > Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
> > internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
> > a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
> > definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
> > fictional --merely shares my name--
>
> Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
> me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.
>
> > consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
> > instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
> > recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
> > Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
> > And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
> > tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?
>
> That question has already been answered.
>
> > And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
> > "Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
> > way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
> > long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
> > outranks FRCS.
>
> Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
> kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
> and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
> part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
> not, I thought it may have been some local custom.
>
> > And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
> > answer this.
>
> No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
> have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
>
> --
> - Nic.
Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.
And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
On May 1, 8:57 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 20:13:59 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com >
> wrote in
> <news:5d244175-649c-4814-8eff-174204fe5074@d19g2000prm.googlegroups,com >:
>
>
>
> > Well...thanks, but I most definitely am *not* entitled to use those
> > postnominals...I'm only 16.5 years old --and am an undergrad at
> > Cerritos College--, and I plan on being a medical doctor, either an
> > internal medicine subspecialist, or an ophthalmologist. If I do become
> > a medical ophthalmologist and/or ophthalmic surgeon, I'll most
> > definitely try for those degrees and qualifications. And, since the
> > fictional --merely shares my name--
>
> Well, thank you - I DON'T think! - for so comprehensvely making a fool of
> me. Quite a clever ruse - you should score high marks for disingenuity.
>
> > consultant medical ophthalmologist and ophthalmic surgeon has a "DM"
> > instead an "MD", and an "MCh", instead of a "ChM" that means he
> > recieved his Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery, Doctor of Medicine, and
> > Master of Surgery from The University of Oxford; erudite guy, he is.
> > And, if I was who you were thinking of for that split second, why, pray
> > tell, would I be asking *this* question, let alone on Usenet?
>
> That question has already been answered.
>
> > And I believe that Dr Sartorius is entitled to use the honorific of
> > "Doctor", since FRCP is an older qualification --RCPLond established
> > way before RCSEng--, thus it has higher precedence in the wonderfully
> > long table of British honors, degrees, and qualifications, so FRCP
> > outranks FRCS.
>
> Not the easiest of things to keep up with from twenty-five thousand
> kilometres away on the other side of the world! Though I did think the DM
> and MCh were a little odd compared to the more usual (at least in this
> part of the world) MD ChM or MB ChB - however you being in the UK and me
> not, I thought it may have been some local custom.
>
> > And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
> > answer this.
>
> No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
> have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
>
> --
> - Nic.
Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.
And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com >
wrote in
<news:61cf6fb4-ea0a-4d7c-b1b2-529786f5f2b6@t12g2000prg.googlegroups,com >:
>>
>>> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
>>> answer this.
>>
>> No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
>> have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
>>
>> --
>> - Nic.
>
> Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.
O-kay. I wish you well with that. You could do one hell of a lot worse.
> And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might
have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend
far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you
will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.
No way was my reply intended as a personal insult.
--
- Nic.
On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com >
wrote in
<news:61cf6fb4-ea0a-4d7c-b1b2-529786f5f2b6@t12g2000prg.googlegroups,com >:
>>
>>> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
>>> answer this.
>>
>> No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
>> have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
>>
>> --
>> - Nic.
>
> Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.
O-kay. I wish you well with that. You could do one hell of a lot worse.
> And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might
have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend
far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you
will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.
No way was my reply intended as a personal insult.
--
- Nic.
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On May 1, 11:50 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com >
> wrote in
> <news:61cf6fb4-ea0a-4d7c-b1b2-529786f5f2b6@t12g2000prg.googlegroups,com >:
>
>
>
> >>> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
> >>> answer this.
>
> >> No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
> >> have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
>
> >> --
> >> - Nic.
>
> > Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.
>
> O-kay. I wish you well with that. You could do one hell of a lot worse.
>
> > And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
>
> Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might
> have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend
> far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you
> will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.
> No way was my reply intended as a personal insult.
>
> --
> - Nic.
So, do you think I pretend to have more knowledge then I actually do?
On May 1, 11:50 pm, Nicolaas Hawkins <grumpy.m...@t.large> wrote:
> On Thu, 1 May 2008 21:19:20 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2...@gmail,com >
> wrote in
> <news:61cf6fb4-ea0a-4d7c-b1b2-529786f5f2b6@t12g2000prg.googlegroups,com >:
>
>
>
> >>> And what of my static retinoscopy vs. autorefractor question? Please
> >>> answer this.
>
> >> No. You will get no answer from me on this - I do not even pretend to
> >> have any qualifications in the field of optometry.
>
> >> --
> >> - Nic.
>
> > Um, I'm also in the USA...I just plan on studying medicine in the UK.
>
> O-kay. I wish you well with that. You could do one hell of a lot worse.
>
> > And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
>
> Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might
> have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend
> far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you
> will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.
> No way was my reply intended as a personal insult.
>
> --
> - Nic.
So, do you think I pretend to have more knowledge then I actually do?
Re: How to perform retinoscopy
On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:35:45 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com >
wrote in
<news:8c9b223d-f70b-4967-8898-775c726cc5de@p25g2000pri.googlegroups,com >:
>>> And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
>>
>> Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might
>> have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend
>> far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you
>> will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.
>> No way was my reply intended as a personal insult.
>>
>> --
>> - Nic.
>
> So, do you think I pretend to have more knowledge then I actually do?
No, I do not - at least not that I have noticed so far. It seems to me
that you are more than intelligent enough to know your own limitations.
You certainly ask a lot of questions in your thirst for knowledge, which
is no bad thing, and it seems that you are getting answers - also no bad
thing as long as you remain able to sort out the good answers from the
dreck.
--
- Nic.
On Fri, 2 May 2008 10:35:45 -0700 (PDT), douglas <Protoman2050@gmail,com >
wrote in
<news:8c9b223d-f70b-4967-8898-775c726cc5de@p25g2000pri.googlegroups,com >:
>>> And, was that a compliment, or an insult?
>>
>> Neither, in fact, Doug. Just the plain, no-bullshit truth. As you might
>> have noticed (or very soon will) there are some in this group who pretend
>> far more knowledge than they in fact possess and, as I am also sure you
>> will have heard quoted before, 'a little learning is a dangerous thing'.
>> No way was my reply intended as a personal insult.
>>
>> --
>> - Nic.
>
> So, do you think I pretend to have more knowledge then I actually do?
No, I do not - at least not that I have noticed so far. It seems to me
that you are more than intelligent enough to know your own limitations.
You certainly ask a lot of questions in your thirst for knowledge, which
is no bad thing, and it seems that you are getting answers - also no bad
thing as long as you remain able to sort out the good answers from the
dreck.
--
- Nic.
