On Jul 6, 2:30 am, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 5, 9:24 pm, p.clar...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Jul 5, 5:53 am, Kakuzu <absolutelyinvinci...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Aww.... poor Brainy felt embarrassed by her short display of
> > > stupidity,
>
> > as opposed to your long, and never-ending, display of stupidity?
> > using numerous stupid screen names?
> > who are you to criticize?
>
> Horatio-Quasimodo has a very limited imagination. As we well know, he
> routinely deletes his posts as he is embarrassed for his own long
> display of stupidity, therefore he assumes that this was the reason
> for my deletion. Sorry, he just displayed another signature of his
> stupidity, together with hypocrisy, hatred, ignorance, delusional mind
> and an extreme case of megalomania. This "kid", whose ambition is not
> only to become an ophthalmologist but a "renowned neuro-
> ophthalmologist" (apparently in order to prescribe Batesian palming
> and sunning, combined with carrots and water) is certainly a
> pathological case that needs medical attention.
>
> Had he not been so ignorant and arrogant (a dangerous combination), he
> would have known that "eye-strain" is not simply one thing, but rather
> a broad name for a variety of symptoms and causes. He of course, as a
> follower of "Horatio-The-Leader" (while denouncing authority), can
> think only about myopic muscle strain, whereas eye strain can be
> caused by corneal stress, eyelids, tear ducts, foreign body, very dry
> air, lack of sleep and a bunch of other things that I will not pretend
> to know.
>
> In the Batesian world muscle strain, due to bad habits and lack of
> sunning, relaxation, spirituality and general bad attitude, is the
> source of all evil, therefore my question was declared by our genius
> as "stupid". In the Batesian world eye strain is most harmful, so how
> could I ask such a question that every first-grader knows the answer
> of?
>
> But this is a science forum. I posted my question with a hope that
> somebody with knowledge would respond, and deleted it when nobody
> did. I do consider Quasimmodo-Kakuzu nobody, and I believe this is
> the consensus of the sci.med.vision group, with the exeption of Otis
> and Revival's multiple personalities. I actually wanted to elaborate
> more on my question, but was under time restrain and chose instead to
> delete the question.
>
> I signed up to this newsgroup not as an expert on eye issues. Until
> about 10 months ago I knew nothing about the subject, but problems
> with my right eye forced me to start my research, and while
> researching the Internet I came across this group. Unlike Kaze, I
> have been open and honest all along, asked sincere questions and
> received valuable information. I am extremely grateful for some of
> the advice I got from eyecare professionals as well as from people who
> have had first hand experience in the issues that I faced. I didn't
> come here with a message to humanity, unlike Quasimodo-Alphonso-
> Eduardo-Bates. I didn't come here to demonstrate my knowledge, to
> confuse or insult anybody, unlike Revival-Higushaki. My only ambition
> was to save my eyes and avoid loss of vision and additional problems.
> In the process I learned a lot.
>
> And then came Quasimodo. He excelled in pasting long antic boring
> articles, attacked people who caused "noise" to his vision, took over
> this forum from day one, supported his views by imaginary identities
> with whom he conversed, and continued despite the obvious fact that
> this choice of strategy achieved nothing but a total loss of his
> credibility.
>
> I presume you all have read his long few bursts of pretended
> "sincerety", telling his personal story without really telling it (no
> credible details or data besides his subjective declaration of
> success), in the same breath of labling everybody else "idiot". He
> confessed to using all these tricks in order to reach the readers.
>
> So who is the idiot here? Did he reach anybody? Is this the way to
> spread the gospell? If attention is what he wanted, he got it. But
> nothing else. His credibility is ruined forever, regardless of what
> new screen name he will use.
>
> I have been a mild myope since my teens and (unlike Quasimodo) never
> considered it as a reason for feeling unhappy. But Revival the Idiot
> admittedly cried and cried, until he found salvation in Batesian
> spiritual revival. As a spiritualist, doesn't he understand that
> misery is in the mind of the beholder?
>
> I have no intention to respond further to his crap. I did not come
> here to wrestle with big pigs. My time is too valuable. My last word
> to Quasimodo is: SEEK MEDICAL TREATMENT, YOU POOR THING.
as they say, Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
