For Ace -- Avoiding entry into stair-case myopia.

otisbrownpa.net wrote: Simple Simon,

This thread was adressed to Ace -- and NOT TO YOU.

I do not see why you are getting "huffy" about -- since you don't know what you are talking about.

Further, people who lurch into vulgar language almost never have much intelligence about science, or abstract analysis of the natural eye as a dynamic system. You DEFINE your self by your language.

Otis

Caveman Otis,

This is a public newsgroup, not your private selling ground. You want to communicate with Ace, get his phone number or email address and stop polluting this forum with your spam.

My language was clearly asterisked out as necessary. Fill those in as necessary. Don't ever quote the likes of "Albert Einstein" in order to back up your alternative claims. My language was used to show how f***ing angry I am.

You're right, I don't have any medical knowledge of my eye. That's not my field. That's why I ask questions here. But don't credit me with no intelligence.

I see your obviously supreme "intelligence" can't actually answer anybodies questions. It has never answered mine, it has never answered anybody elses. When you're asked a direct question, you go cut and paste a lengthy document. You are unable to construct a direct response.

Simple? Pot and Kettle.

Cya Simon

I see your obviously supreme "intelligence" can't actually answer anybodies questions. It has never answered mine, it has never answered anybody elses. When you're asked a direct question, you go cut and paste a lengthy document. You are unable to construct a direct response.

Otis answers direct questions with either the generic old dogmatic ramblings, or (as is the case for me) complete absence of any response whatever.

He also treats people who agree with him (ie Ace) with such consideration and positive regard... I wonder if he really believes he's not transparent as glass.

The quotation thing is new, though. At least there's variety in his style of presentation. New clothes for the Emperor, Otis? Some kind of... 'quoting people with credibility will somehow improve my own' approach? All-righty then. You just keep on quoting. See how far it gets you. I've got a couple of quotes for you, but they're not really for public consumption. ;)

But, Otis - please don't think anyone is fooled, or distracted from the essence of your writings. No one is fooled. You're closed-minded dogmatic, ignorant and arrogant. So it is, so it ever shall be.

And you STILL haven't answered my question on accomodation in primates, which I asked months ago, and asked several times - all you've said is that I should conduct the research myself.

Foolish old codger.

If you do not like what is posted about the dynamic nature of the fudamental eye -- then don't read it.

There -- that was easy.

Otis

+++++++++++

BD wrote: I see your obviously supreme "intelligence" can't actually answer anybodies questions. It has never answered mine, it has never answered anybody elses. When you're asked a direct question, you go cut and paste a lengthy document. You are unable to construct a direct response.

Otis answers direct questions with either the generic old dogmatic ramblings, or (as is the case for me) complete absence of any response whatever.

He also treats people who agree with him (ie Ace) with such consideration and positive regard... I wonder if he really believes he's not transparent as glass.

The quotation thing is new, though. At least there's variety in his style of presentation. New clothes for the Emperor, Otis? Some kind of... 'quoting people with credibility will somehow improve my own' approach? All-righty then. You just keep on quoting. See how far it gets you. I've got a couple of quotes for you, but they're not really for public consumption. ;)

But, Otis - please don't think anyone is fooled, or distracted from the essence of your writings. No one is fooled. You're closed-minded dogmatic, ignorant and arrogant. So it is, so it ever shall be.

And you STILL haven't answered my question on accomodation in primates, which I asked months ago, and asked several times - all you've said is that I should conduct the research myself.

Foolish old codger.

There -- that was easy.

Easy for you, maybe - there's no kf on Google Groups!!!

otisbrownpa.net wrote: If you do not like what is posted about the dynamic nature of the fudamental eye -- then don't read it.

There -- that was easy.

Otis



OK Kettle, if you don't like what I write about you, or what anybody else writes, don't read it, and don't respond to it. It would cut down so much of your spam.