Kevin,

With minus glasses of a higher power the peripheral visionfield has
MORE formation instead off less compared to myoops without glasses. In
a small angle they get the same information twice.(rimless frame)

With plus glasses (even rimless) they get less information. In a small
angle they could not "catch" a thing.

Asking this, should there be a difference in myopics and
hypermetropics wich we may not ignore speaking about the retina when
wearing glasses?

And what do you suggest if these myoops and hypermetroops wear
contactlenses? Do not say Bates has no answer,  contactlenses are
already present at the time Bates wrote his book.
--
Jan (normally Dutch spoken)

On 30 Mar, 13:26, Kevin <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

In article <MPG.19a0267a83607f95989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

------------------

Hogwash!  I'd suggest you read your own words again.  I quoted it
here, above directly from your post.

Not hollow.

Your statement is simply false. It is not "well known that all
myopes............"  That is wrong. Just say: "I should have been more
careful how I chose my words.  Or admit you are wrong. It has to be
one or the other.

I'm sorry if clincal observation and the reporting of data based on
the scientific method gets in the way of Bates rhetoric. It's simple
to find lack of credibilty in The Method when parts of it are known to
be false, invalid, or detrimental.

On the other hand, it seems that the Bates Cultists have not been able
to come up with any credible evidence that there is validity to The
Method. Nothing.  If you want to discuss Bates in a sci.med heirarchy
of UseNet newsgroups, then you've got to come up with some science.
Otherwise, the proper place to promote Bates is in an alt. newsgroup
or perhaps misc.health.alternative.  Not here.

I've been around here long enough to know that every couple of years a
new crop of Bates zealots shows up here for a while, usually just
after the pin-hole glasses people leave. This current crop is taking
longerthan usual to go away.

Personally, I love to see you cultists get it together and fund a
study to try to prove your point.  It doesn't matter whether YOU think
it works or even if a whole cult of users thinks it works. You've got
to able to show cause and effect relationship. It is helpful to
understand the physiology that makes the connection, but sometimes it
is OK to present data that shows the cause and effect without knowing
exactly why and how. You can work on that later.  Then you've got to
show it is both safe and effective, or at least exactly HOW effective.
You've got to be able to prove The Method is a safe and effective
treatment for what it is promoted to achieve.

Either it is, or it isn't. Don't YOU really want to know, or it is
still OK to believe the moon is made of cheese and the earth is flat?
I heard it's just those warped polycarbonate windows on the all
spacecraft that make the earth appear to a globe. Of course the moon
isn't made of cheese!  No one believed that one.  Did they?

--LB

On 30 Mar, 13:46, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

The question is, Don't YOU really want to know?  Since you are the
ones treating people, shouldn't you research this more instead of
mocking and ignoring something that you know nothing about.  If there
is a cure for myopia, hyperopia, etc.;  is it not in your patients
best interest to find this out?

I think one thing that some people might be unaware of is that the
docs here are clinicians, not vision researchers. They base their
practices on existing studies done by vision researchers. You might
approach the latter to do Bates studies. Most clinicians have an
entirely different  orientation. They want to help their patients, but
using methods they are absolutely certain of.

Cheers,
Francine

On 30 Mar, 16:12, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

On 30 Mar, 13:46, LarryDoc <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

I've already commented earlier on the flat earth concept.  It was
certainly reasonable in its time.

As for the moon being made of green cheese, I think that's been taken
out of context.  If someone was to say that their car is "candy apple
red", nobody would think that the car was made out of apples.  "Green
cheese" does not refer to a green color.  If I referred to a new
employee as being green, you would not expect their skin to be green.
"Green" means new. If you have ever seen green cheese (cheese that was
just made and hasn't ripened at all), you would instantly realize that
it is exactly the color of the moon.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net

On 30 Mar, 16:12, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

If Bates techniques worked as well as you claim, then SOMEBODY besides
Bates would have published incontrovertible, repeatable confirmation
of his findings. I've looked for evidence in the literature that
palming, sunning, imagining black, centration and the "long swing" are
of any benefit. It really would be Nobel-quality news. I don't find
any confirming studies, except by Bates.

YOU assume the evidence isn't there because nobody else has tested
Bates' claims. You assume that Bates had no colleagues interested in
proving his techniques or sharing his success. I believe those
confirming studies were never published because nobody has been able
to duplicate the dramatic results that Bates claimed to have "in every
case" and in "thousands of cases".

Since you know my patients' best interest so well, you'll understand
how I have to recommend treatments that work reliably. It appears to
me that Bates' techniques don't work unless HE performs the therapy
and HE does the before-and-after evaluations. Maybe there are others
with his gift, alive today. But results that depend on a personality
rather than a process are not considered effective.

-MT

On 30 Mar, 16:17, Mike Tyner <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Yes, I assume there has never been another test of Bates experiments
done, because I have never seen any.  YOU assume that his experiments
have been tested even though you have never seen any evidence of
this.  Who is making the bigger assumption?

On 30 Mar, 16:18, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Ahh-- so you make the assumption that because you haven't seen it, it
doesn't exist.  How open minded of you.

And let's assume there has not been any formal testing of The Method.
Care to ask why not, after a century goes by?  Do not Cultists care
about reality?  (Rhetorical.)

Can you read or not?  MT wrote about publishing, not performing the
tests.

In any event, the burdon of proof is on the Bates Cultists and, as the
saying goes:  "put up or shut up."

Or just go away and palm away the strain.

--LB

On Mar 30, 8:05 am, Kory Postma <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Here is my problem with understanding this.  The retinal anatomy and
neurology are organized so that only the small central area is seen
most clearly, it is not a habit that needs to be learned.  As it is
anatomically not possible (except for genetic defects in retina) to
not see centrally, how do people learn that "bad habit".

Same goes for scanning and retaining memory.  The eye has
micromovements, the visual system relies on short term memory and
persistence of vision --- this is the normal, inborn way of seeing
that requires no conscious effort.  Where is the evidence that those
with refractive error are not seeing that way?

Dr Judy

On 30 Mar, 16:12, Jason Harper <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Of course you aren't aiming your comments at me, since I am a computer
person and not a medical person, but...wake up folks, there *is* a
cure for all of these refractive problems.  There are several
different methods.  I wouldn't personally recommend them, but they are
very common and very popular.  Currently the most popular is LASIK.
As far as I am concerned, it is a true cure.

Of course, although most people don't consider glasses and contacts as
a true cure, they certainly do the job with few side effects.  They
have been called "crutches" on this group, but they certainly work
better at helping people see than crutches do at helping people run or
walk.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net

news:larrydoc-6EAF69.12591411082003@news06.west.earthlink.net...

How open minded of you to mock and try to discredit something that you
know nothing about.

Have you seen any evidence that the tests have been performed?

On 30 Mar, 13:41, Jan <lite...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Contacts in general have some advantages over glasses in that they
provide a slightly more normal experience for visual focusing.

I do understand that more visual information is available in the casw
of lenses for myopia, but you are skipping the point - the retinal
area used to see that 'greater visual information' is a smaller area
of the retina than if the whole eye is used without lenses.

Perhaps it would be clearer if I said, 'the area of visual information
which is perceived as useful by the subject takes up a smaller space
on the retina than on the retina of a person who uses their eyes
without glasses'. Stuff outside that clarity bubble that glasses
provide is generally disgregarded. The connection between eye and
brain of the reception of light on those retinal cells at the outer
periphery is thus ignored.

Kevin

In article <larrydoc-5F1000.00065511082...@news06.west.earthlink.net>,
larry...@nospam.yahoo.com says...

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

Yes, I agree with that. It would be truer to me to say 'I am under the
impression that it is more likely for myopes, and particularly high
myopes to have some degeneration at the peripheral edges of their
vision.'

I don't mind being wrong about that, but it is a strong impression
I've gathered from hearing talks and advice from some of the
ophthalmologists I'm in contact with over here in the UK. I usually
attempt to avoid making generalizations perhaps in this case I
misunderstood what was being said, and I don't have the statistical
data to follow it up.

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -

TYhere's a significant problem here - the current crop are mostly
neither zealots nor charlatans, but the mix of different worlds
creates that impression. Actually for both sides it appears that the
other side is somewhat insane.

To be fair, Bates does attract a fair number of people looking for the
magic answer to life and you will get a degree of unperceptive
delivery which is in no way helpful. This sort of thing is what makes
the method produce a kind of cultic impression and people who are
deeply like that tend to be more vocal. But they can't discuss very
well.

Yes, and I totally agree. There's a reason that this has never been
done before. Back in the 1940s when Corbett was taken to court (twice)
for practicing medicine without a license one of the long term results
was a very effective damping down on all Bates teachers. Although she
was acquitted, Corbett herself was seriously alarmed and began to
suppress publicity around the method. As she was one of the most
influential teachers her subsequent advice to all Bates teachers to
keep their heads down was taken seriously.

By the time I trained in the 90s, this overall 'survival' approach had
created what I'd call a serious 'community rot' amongst Bates teachers
and vision educators in general.

Over the last couple of years I have become increasingly acutely aware
of just what happened and why it happened. Colleagues of mine would be
only too happy to discredit 'scientific method' and its
representatives, because it was considered a good way of justifying
the contiunued lack of well designed studies - not in a conscious way
nor with malevolent intent, but with an accepted 'this is how things
are' approach.

Unfortunately, it is also bull**** and time it was rooted out and
exposed for what it is. Any optician who wants to try and expose this
lack will be shouting themselves hoarse for a long time. From a Bates
community point of view the orthodoxy is unable to speak much sense by
default, so this is part of the reason that it appears that there is
this constant butting of heads with no-one really grasping the
essential points which help things to move forward.

But I agree with you completely, there needs to be some really well
designed studies, and done with the co-operation of opticians,
optometrists and ophthalmologists. Results do not have to be as
spectacular as what Bates claimed - just an indication that
progressive myopia is slowed, or overall reduced in impact would be
significant enough don't you agree?

Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that
will, if promising, lead to a long term study about the effectiveness
(or not) of the method.

Yes I do want to know, because I don't have time to put my conviction
behind something which is on inadequate foundations.

Kevin

Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!

Nice to see you here!!!

How are you doing with your myopic refraction? Do you still use
glasses?

Too bad that you are investing in a study about your "method", because
I know it will be failed and we will all suffer from this.

Maybe Corbett, the greatest charlatan of all, was right: keep your
head low, commanded her to you all! She knew she was not right and was
not able to REALLY cure people, so she chose to do very low profile
work, discrediting Bates himself (whom she never knew).

I think the only way to exit from these bad waters is show that cures
happen, and advocates of Bates should be cured before speaking or
teaching. What is the use to propose studies trying to show some
"improvement" (which in most cases is as faint as a ghost?) when the
proposer himself hasn't got much success?

If you need help to cure your high myopia permanently, I am available.

In article <c72b1499.0308150532.1dc5...@posting.google.com>,
g.ga...@agora.it says...

I drop in and out occasionally.

Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
years.

Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.

Thanks.

What puzzles me Rishi is why you go to such lengths to cause
dissension and discord. There are many many people involved in the NVI
movement and the orthodox vision world in general. Some will be better
at passing on helpful advice than others, some will have a more
clearly Batesian approach than others. Some will not understand it
all, some will understand very little. Yet you will persist in
alienating yourself from them all. If you want to communicate with
them in order to pass on your 'knowledge', why make sure that you've
offended them all first?

But I guess the real point I want to make is that you seem to be
totally unable to communicate in any other way. Oh, unless you want
something of course in which event you can become very chummy.

So how many Bates teachers are now in the list of those who have told
you to go away?

Doesn't it bother you that you can't actually communicate with anyone
without being offensive?

Personally, I don't have any problems with dealing with Bates oriented
person vs. ophthalmologist, in a civil and organised manner, where
things get discussed and information is passed and shared. There's no
agenda to convince but a genuine desire to exchange. It works, and
things move forward.

But whether you like this or not, or think this is silly or not, or a
waste of time or not, the fact is that to those of orthodox
inclination you epitomize the image of the Bates cult member. Unable
to communicate without offense, unaware that this gets you nowhere and
in fact provides ammunition for the orthodoxy to dismiss the method
outright.

I know you are annoyed at me because I put you on moderation on the
Bates yahoogroups list because you were unable to talk without being
rude or childish, but really going from writing to me and telling me
that you considered I was one of only two Bates teachers who could
really teach it (and asking me if I would train you) to this apparent
childish diatribe above, I mean, what a mess.

It's a shame, because your heart's in the right place, but your people
skills suck big time.

Kevin

On 30 Mar, 16:25, Kevin <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

You are still wrong and that stems from basic lack of understanding of
the physiology and neurology of the retina.  I will be quite brief:

The peripheral retina photoreceptors do not care if the image is
focused or not. Their purpose is to "sense" form awareness and motion
detection.

So, " stuff outside the clarity bubble" is not ignored.

You might want to research the neuro function of the retina, as theren
are three separate systems there----the central fixation (focused
image expected), the certral visual field, paracentral extrafoveal
visual field and peripheral visual field.

--LB

--
Dr. Larry Bickford, O.D.
Family Practice Eye Health & Vision Care

The Eyecare Connection
http//www.eyecarecontacts.com
larrydoc at m a c.c o m

In article <MPG.19a692d770af9bc7989...@news.ntlworld.com>,

Very nicely said, Kevin.

Then I gather you'll be gone from this newsgroup until such time as
you have some data to report?

--LB

On 30 Mar, 16:37, LarryDoc <misa...@googlemail.com> wrote:

Other points aside I only spend time here to test out the current
state of the water.

But as problems arise  I will possibly drop in to sound out solutions
to some logistical problems with implementing the study design. Other
than your own boorish responses there are some thoughtful members of
the orthodoxy posting here whom have been very helpful to me already.

Kevin

You drop always out of the right time.

And how do you cope with driving, with life in general? If it is true
that you can see only 20/50 you should be in a very dirty position.You
are not able to detect any sign of eyestrain or strain when you work
with your clients. How do you do that? Get closer?

Speak out the truth, because to lie is against your permanent cure,
remember well!!!

I know that you are ignorant about the truth, that's all.
You demonstrate that the Evaristo was right: you are a stupid man. I
once had faith in you and trusted you, but when you confessed that you
are blind and cannot go over 20/50 then I understood how fake you and
your friends at seeing.org are.

This is saddening, because it is unbelievable that after 15 years of
training you are still at 20/50.

The idiots professionals you find here are right.

Poor Doctor Bates must be suffering a lot in his grave seeing that his
work was so badly treated by people like you.

It's difficult for me to understand how you all can go on propounding
the Bates stuff and still be not cured!

The NVI movement is something very shallow.
Just today I handled the Reference book, Relearning To See. Well, it's
so terribly stuffed by wrong advice, that I am appalled: I put it back
in the shelf. What is the use of NVI? It's simply false.

I am not interested in your false movement. Just I want to disseminate
to those who can listen that there is no need for your false and
misleading stuff. So my opinion is just one amongst the others. You
should not be worried.

I'm interested in the truth.
Since you are not telling the truth, I have to tell it for you.

???

Perhaps you are mismatching me with some other men.

Please read back the posts and see that, in truth, the so-called Bates
Teachers are coming to me seeking help and counselling. I can quote
them as three now, from three different nationalities. Three persons
reached me because of my work as a publisher and as an expert in the
words of Bates. All of them had the training with Quackenbush (also
the teacher training) done in the past.

This is silly, I am angry about that, because if such people need to
talk to me, whom I am nobody, just entered this business few months
ago!... Then this means one only thing: the mainstream "teaching" in
the field is bullshit, really. You have robbed Bates of his very
work!!! THAT'S REALLY INFAMOUS.

Please, stop call yourself "Bates Teacher". Call yourself an NVI
teacher, it is more honest in the memory of Bates.

I do it, when I do it, out of compassion, because sometimes people is
really hard and dumb and if you do not beat them you could not obtain
nothing. But I understand: there are people which the more you hit
them the more become stubborn and stupid. But it is a risk one should
tale, but it is done out of compassion.

You are talking nonsense.

"Bates oriented person" do not exist. You can tell only one thing:
people gets a permanent cure, or not. Permanently cured people have a
dignity, which you lack, and need not bother with ophthalmologists and
other criminals like those.

a "Bates oriented person" that cannot get a cure is just an idiot, he
only shows his ignorance, and should study better and learn better and
be quiet instead of speaking or teaching.

Fuck them all, Mr. Wooding, I am not concerned with the idiots-
professionals. Just I am happy and aware that I can read more than
25/25 (feet) in low light indoors, just tested myself today, and still
improving. I have no need for any acknowledgement (polite or not) by
those ugly people, people that prescribe glasses instead of teaching
rest methods, people that use lasers to cut corneas and destroy
happines forever, these people, I do not want to have anything to do
with!!!

I am a fair person: I believe those people you refer to are criminals
and tell lies upon lies to people. I act accordingly. I know what is
the truth of perfect sight. I know the professionals don't have a clue
about that, and so you. If you need to have something to do with these
professionals, that shows your ignorance. It's not personal to you (I
am not interested in anybody personally), but to people like you.

How can you explain to an idiot like the doctors we have here that
vision is largely mental and refraction has nothing to do with it?
What is the purpose of this? It's useless to work with these people.
It's unbelievable how you cannot understand this!!! There is no
question about that!!!

Yes! I was not aware of your incompetence!!!
I know now that you are just an ignorant man as I was. Now I am no
more ignorant, I have understood how to cure myself, and did it. Now I
can offer my understanding to you, as I have done, but since you are
stupid, it seems, you are not interested in getting cured.
This is strange.
Why you do not want to be cured, to cure yourself, to go on with the
treatment and go over 20/10 (as my aim is, for now)???

By the way, your group is full of bullshit. It is not worthwhile, just
a waste of time reading it. Full of stupid things you teach in the
name of Bates, which Bates never even imagined. To let children play
with pile of books and have them scatter all around... What nonsense
is this? Playing with balls... Are you mad?

These are the things you teach: bring a dozen books, pile them up, and
have the child hit them and let them fall to the ground.

Compliments, keep on with the great works!!!

The shame is with the people like you: you call yourself "Bates
Teachers" but you know nothing about Bates, have no understanding, no
practical use of it, no intelligence to impart to clients.

The evidence of this is that you are now three years on the net and
nobody of your readers or writers has got any valuable progress, not
to mention cures.

If I am wrong, please tell. But I know I am not wrong, because I know
that the real Bates stuff needs intelligence, and I do not see much
intelligence around, unfortunately.

By the way: I have more than 400 clients of the Bates book, more than
150 listees in my professional Yahoo Group, and more than 40 people in
the non-professional, open yahoo group dedicated to the 1920 book.

By the way: I have just published the Emily 1926 book, both in English
and Italian, and the clients who have purchased it are enjoining it
very much, and some of them are cured now by reading only the two
books.

By the way: I don't care a bit of your opinions!!! What I only think
of is to let people know the truth of the very words of Bates/Lierman,
because I know that those words are the only things that work. But
this is just out of my compassion, not for other reasons, except a
little bit of cash I may earn from this very time consuming
businesses.

I hope you will get to 20/20 soon, but if you still stick to your
method, you won't reach.

On 30 Mar, 17:12, Rishi Giovanni Gatti

My goodness Rishi, your incomprehension is about the most complete
I've ever seen. I have better things to do than read your
extraordinary fabrications or whatever they are, just not
understanding I suppose. Do you have any awareness that you misquote
and misread?

Suffice to say that your good friend Evaristo unsubscribed and called
me a stupid man when I asked him to help out another reader who wanted
to understand the swing and how to implement it. Why? who knows. It
looked significantly like turning yellow to me. The same went for
another subscriber of around that time - when i asked for some
practical signs that they could be of some use to the group instead of
just whining and complaining that 'no one else got it', and the
response was again stony silence.

No use at all Rishi. None.

It's great that you've found something that really fires you up. Long
may you promulgate it with enjoyment and of great benefit to others.

It saddens me that you simultaneously alienate yourself from many
people with no control over the habit.

You know, you may have the single most significant contributiion to
make to the whole of the Bates method movement, but instead of simply
bringing it to the table you deliver it like this:

'This is the real Bates and if you don't understand it or if you have
something else to offer you are stupid, a liar, a charlatan etc. and
there is no use in talking to you'.

This is two year old behaviour. Why so spoiled? Do you not know that
no man is an island unto himself? It is acceptable for someone of the
age of two to believe all information and the universe centres on him,
but it is not acceptable for someone who can string a couple of
sentences together. Would you not like to have many teachers
sympathetic to your words and happy to listen, learn, and discuss and
share experiences?

Your approach is exactly what happened to the method in the last 70
years. "I have it and those people over there don't" The result was
fragmentation, and a disintegration of the much needed support for
pushing the method forward.

Right or wrong just tone it down, and  break free of whatever
programming you're under and then you'll find a degree of progress
that is so much more than now.

Kevin

Your vision is bad as is your memory.

You mismatch me with the Evaristo!

I was not moderated from your group, I simply left when I became aware
of your incompetence.

It was the Evaristo that was moderated. Check your loggings, you can
see it very well. Stop telling lies, otherwise I will continue to
expose you.

Then, what is the point of "moderation"?

People can subscribe with different names and mocker you more easily.

Either you moderate everybody (as I do in my Italian group, but it is
an editorial choice, not to put off people who are not according the
standards), or you moderate nobody. It is unfair to only moderate
those who are better than you and show more intelligence than you. You
are an unfair man.

???

???

???

I do not see ANY BATES METHOD MOVEMENT!!!
There is none and there will never be none, because the Bates stuff is
mainly individual, is a single personal process, it is not a religion,
although you bad teachers are striving to transform it into one!!!

You are the same rotten minds as the professionals here. But you think
you are on the right side of the river, just as they are thinking
about themselves.

You are part of a rotten church as they are.

It's ugly to say this, but it is the truth!

You want to build something, but your fundations are rotten.

Why don't you cure yourself permanently?

Explain that.

That's true: the Bates publications are available. Who are you to cut,
distort and destroy his publications, robbing people of the true
genius of the man, and in his name, too!!! And you cannot get any cure
for yourself!!!

Don't you feel embarassed?

You and all your friends, high myopic and imperfected sighted people,
chose not to cure yourselves but to sell your false teachings to other
gullibles, and you advocate for yourself the truth about "The
Method"!!!

NO IF THE TEACHERS ARE NOT ABLE TO CURE THEMSELVES!!!

CURE YOURSELF AND I WILL RESPECT YOU!!!

OTHERWISE STOP TO SPOIL THE BATES NAME AND START SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

YOU ARE DESTROYING THE WHOLE WORK OF BATES AND LIERMAN.

I just happened to cure myself, which you cannot do.
If what happened in the last 70 years was something like this, that
cures happened, there would have no need to disintegrate anything.

Instead, people started to call themselves experts and teachers, like
you do, WITHOUT HAVING ANY SUCCESS IN CURING THEMSELVES!!!

How cannot you see this, I am puzzled.

There is no "method" to bu pushed forward.

You have to push yourself to perfect your understanding and your
practice, become cured, and cure others.

But if you cannot cure yourself, if you cannot still maintain your
constant improvement, then what are you teaching? You are simply
teaching how to remain uncured.

It's clear and simple.

Maybe you need more time to realize this, take your time, I am not
bothered by you, just wanted to expose your unfairness and
charlatanery.

???

You'd better tone you up and start finally to practice the right
methods to get a cure.

It's a shame that you read only 20/50 and your vision fluctuates. And
you cannot drive, and you cannot see how people behave with their eyes
when you teach them.

Start to practice according to the truth and become cured.

I assure you that you can be back to 20/20 and more. Believe me. But
you have to drop the false things they taught you (myopic people
taught you to remain myopic), return to the Original Sources and
practice accordingly.

I suspect you fear the sun too much, you don't practice with strong
electrical lights and you don't practice with imagination of black in
the distance.

So, you have much to do for yourself. Then, and only then, your
"method" will spread and you won't be embarassed to face the ugly
professionals that threathen you.

Start the practice.
If you need help, I am available.

Question:  Who is the "True Bates" person?

Kevin?  Rishi?  Alex?  ....

Does this list extend out to infinity?

Please explain why you truly understand Bates "correctly".

No wonder the majority-opinion OD "gives up".  This is
a tower of babble, not an organized "method".

Thanks,

On Mar 30, 12:19 pm, Rishi Giovanni Gatti

Most of the posts on this thread are from two different addresses,
"Atchoo" and a new one.  The bodies of the posts are taken from real
people, from the distant past.  I don't think they were reposted with
permission, certainly mine weren't.

This may not be a problem, but it raises a red flag in my mind.  When I
see two people arguing with each other, using the same posting address,
I have a problem with their credibility.  When they throw in the name of
an OD who posts here, then I get even more skeptical.

--
Dan Abel
Petaluma, California USA
da...@sonic.net

WTF? Have I got a messed up news reader here? It appears that all the
conversations including MT's either come from

absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com or
lite...@googlemail.com

Even though they identify as different people... Same posting hosting,
same version of Firefox.

Lets test this shall we.

On Mar 30, 5:22 pm, Simon Dean <sjd...@gmail.com> wrote:

Not only that, but the dates are also false.  Except for this post, I
have not posted into this thread today or this month or this year.  I
also recognize a couple of other posters who have been long gone...

Gives you an insight into the personality type now, doesn't it?