The group you are posting to is a Usenet group. Messages posted to this group will make your email address visible to anyone on the Internet.
Your reply message has not been sent.
Your post was successful
Newsgroups: sci.med.vision
From: Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com>
Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2008 04:50:04 -0700 (PDT)
Local: Sun, Mar 30 2008 9:50 pm
Subject: Re: Dr. Bates: The Effect of the Minus on the Eye's Refractive STATE
>Arguments are to be avoided. They are always vulgar -- and Actually, debate often leads to intellectual progress. >often convincing. It's true that arguments can divide people, but arguments help people to know where they stand and to make an analysis of the scenario. If there were never any arguments, one may deduce that everyone has the same opinion on everything. What kind of a world would it be if everyone agreed on everything? Boring >This is Dr. Bates' statement about his reason for his Actually, Dr. Bates opposed the use of a minus lens on ANY eyes. >opposing the use of a minus lens on an eye that is slightly >nearsighted. Slightly nearsighted or very nearsighted is not relevant. >From Chapter 8 by Dr. Bates Actually, Dr. Bates was describing the effect of ANY lenses. Minus >(Clarifying statement added -- minus lens) >That (minus-lens) glasses must injure the eye is evident lens, plus lens, astigmatic corrective lens, etc. He was impartial on what kind of lens is in use, but stated that they are ALL detrimental to the sight. You are twisting his words, Otis! Can't you just stick to Dr Raphaelson and leave poor Dr. Bates alone? You must Sign in before you can post messages.
To post a message you must first join this group.
Please update your nickname on the subscription settings page before posting.
You do not have the permission required to post.
| ||||||||||||||