The reason for me raising the issue again is a couple of messages that
were posted on sci.med.vision but are no longer there, apparently
removed by the writer. The reason for the removal (I presume) is that
the writer him/herself realized how outrageous the messages were and
decided to eliminate them. Both messages go back to the same Revival
at the address of "absolutely invinsible @ hotmail.com"

Revival has done nothing to help anybody here. Whether s/he is a kid
or a mentally disturbed adult is irrelevant. No repent, this person
cannot be forgiven.

Don't be fooled by the good behavior of Revival/Kaze et.al. today.
This chameleon is likely to come back in any of the old screen names
or new ones to preach futility, to kick, insult and stir the pot. I
have no idea what motivates somebody to do that, but then I could
never fully comprehend the mind of the insane.

The reason for me raising the issue again is a couple of messages that
were posted on sci.med.vision but are no longer there, apparently
removed by the writer. The reason for the removal (I presume) is that
the writer him/herself realized how outrageous the messages were and
decided to eliminate them. Both messages go back to the same Revival
at the address of "absolutely invinsible @ hotmail.com"

Remember, this is the same little Norweigian girl who sent us to
Bates, then had a 12-yr old twin, then had an ambition to become an
ophthalmologist, then supported Otis but later kicked him, then
recommended water as the cure for all eye ailments, then attempted to
steal Neil's name, then repented and asked Neil to forgive him for bad
behavior but in no time went back to kicking and screaming about who
knows what, and today decided to be temporarily nice and quiet.

OK, here are the 2 deleted outrageous messages, both in response to
me, from the person who wants to become an ophthalmologist:

Message #1

William Horatio Bates - 06 Jun 2007 09:15 GMT
(quoting me): "can help my bad eye (currently 20/400, after a macular
hole, retinal
detachment and presently very thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I
seek a second opinion?"

I have cured many relatives and friends under such conditions.

Nature is always willing to forgive the harm you have self inflicted
on your eyes. The mercy of Allah is without limits.
----------------------------

Message #2

Itachi - 06 Jun 2007 09:21 GMT
(quoting me again): "can help my bad eye (currently 20/400, after a
macular hole, retinal
detachment and presently very thick pre-surgery cataract)? Should I
seek a second opinion?"

Indeed, it is possible to cure a person in your current state.

Laugh at me, ridicule me, but at the end of the day, who is blind?
----------------------------

Even if you ignore the ridiculous flawed logic (mercy of Allah,
unsubstantiated claim of "self inflicted harm", offering non-specific
"cure" and threatening the non-followers in blindness, etc.) -- will
you send your child, mother or friend to this ophthalmologist?

Revival has done nothing to help anybody here. Whether s/he is a kid
or a mentally disturbed adult is irrelevant. No repent, this person
cannot be forgiven.

The arguments we have are intellectual -- only.

On Jun 8, 6:03 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

The arguments we have are intellectual -- only.

The only thing "intellectual" about YOUR side of the "argument" is the
never-ending intellectual dishonesty.

Care to answer my questions now?

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Dear Neil,

As I understand it -- you are from San Diego -- is that correct.

Now, answer my question:

A person posted from San Diego under the assumed
name "O...@pa.net".

Did you make that post?

Dear Neil,

As I understand it -- you are from San Diego -- is that correct.

Now, answer my question:

A person posted from San Diego under the assumed
name "O...@pa.net".

Did you make that post?

Otis

On Jun 8, 9:48 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...@yahoo.com> wrote:

On Jun 8, 6:03 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

The arguments we have are intellectual -- only.

The only thing "intellectual" about YOUR side of the "argument" is the
never-ending intellectual dishonesty.

Care to answer my questions now?

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

why don't you please address the open questions in the thread you
posted yesterday. Here is the link to that thread:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.vision/browse_thread/thread/42c3ec1882689c3b/ac668540e6dc5b27?hl=en#

and then, in my reply, I asked you the following:
"perhaps you would like to tell us what your conclusions are from
these
publications-- as an objective engineer and as a rational thinking
person, what do these publications prove to you?"

Otis-- why do you avoid logical direct back-and-forth discussion?

Dear Brainy,

You are correct. There is a lot of double posting
on sci.med.vision.

In fact, a person might come back as "Ms. Brainy", or
"O...@pa.net", or other false postings.

So there is no doubt about it.

The majority-opinion ODs posting here are good. No
doubt about it. Where they have their own web site -- you
can check -- and should.

The arguments we have are intellectual -- only. I hope
you understand the difference in concept in the first place.

Otis

- Show quoted text -

On Jun 8, 6:55 am, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote:

Dear Neil,

As I understand it -- you are from San Diego -- is that correct.

Now, answer my question:

A person posted from San Diego under the assumed
name "O...@pa.net".

Did you make that post?

And now, once again, we have the ultimate audacity of Uncle Otie: To
dodge valid questions time and again, yet feel a sense of entitlement
to have YOUR questions answered.

Nice try.

You start. We'll see where it goes from there.

http://nbeener.com/NDB_OSB_Qs.txt

Come on. Fully, honestly, completely, and directly.

Yet again, Neil Books, you evaded the question.

As an engineer, I would suggest that you are the
only person how hates the concept of the second-opinion -- posting
from San Diego.

What is the probability that some stranger, in San Diego,
could post remarks about plus-prevention, and
some of the concepts I express about the natural eye's
dynamic behavior -- except you.

About 1 percent I would think. But you do
have plausable denial, based on that remote
possibilty.

The others can judge this the probability for
themselves, and your credibility also.