|
|
sci.med.vision |
You are twisting his words, Otis! Can't you just stick to Dr Raphaelson and leave poor Dr. Bates alone? >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.
Imagine how much he is suffering right now in his grave knowing how
his statements have been corrupted with wrong interpretation! Gosh!