Srat away from "vision educators"

Discussion in 'Eye-Care' started by Rishigg, Aug 5, 2003.

  1. Rishigg

    Rishigg Guest

    Today an Italian man who presented himself as a "vision educator" phoned
    me about the Italian version of Perfect Sight Without Glasses he wanted
    to buy.

    I had to tell him that the book is sold out and is now in reprint and
    will be ready for deliver in a couple of weeks.

    Then I shared with him a good conversation.

    Even if he is a "vision educator" he is not accustomed to the Original
    Bates System. In fact, he not only does not understand how to benefit
    from the sun-gazing, neither from the sun-glass, but he never tried the
    experimenr of low light and microprint, I have learnt.

    He promised me that he would have tried this soon.

    He is a researcher and told me than most advanced theories about vision
    are discovering the hidden powers of the external muscles of the eye,
    and this is slowly being acknowledge in academic sites, exactly in the
    same direction as Bates did. It seems that only the idiots doctors here
    on seem to not cope with this fact.

    Nevertheless, he is not so much sure about his own understanding of
    Bates work that felt the urge to try my edition of PSWG. Also to
    subscribe to my magazine "il falco". He lives in the States, and has a
    story of hypermetropia, which he thinks he can definitely cure after he
    has spoken to me.

    To one question, he answered that when he was at Columbia University in
    New York he tried to reach some documents about Bates but became aware
    that all was effaced out, he could not find anything about him.

    I hope to work with him soon because he showed a kind of open mind which
    is not there when I have something to do with idiots like Cagnoli and
    Co., the mainstream "vision educators" in Italy. These people have
    spoiled the name of Bates for their own purpose, that is selling their
    courses and programs which have nothing to do with the Original Bates

    "Friends" of Bates are largely great frauds, great false men. They
    understand nothing of Him. In fact, nobody gets a cure, and Bates
    himself gets mocked at by other idiots like the ignorant men we find here.

    "As surely as any soldier ever died on the field, Dr. Bates gave his
    life for a cause, battling against fate, during many years of
    magnificent struggle, when the unending disappointment finally broke in
    hopeless despair. His torch is still burning. There will come some other
    battler, who is fit, and will hold it high until the people who are
    sitting in darkness have seen its great light."
    William B. MacCracken, M.D.
    (1937, Berkeley CA)
    Rishigg, Aug 5, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  2. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    Of course one should, but the thing is, would it get published either
    way? That is the most daunting task.

    Kory Postma, Aug 6, 2003
    1. Advertisements

  3. Rishigg

    nipidoc Guest

    Can you provide us with a statement as to what YOU think the Bates
    Method is??

    And please don't say "a program to eliminate glasses". If that's your
    claim, then say "a program to eliminate glasses BY..........."

    Maybe you can help all us uneducated docs "truly understand what the
    Bates Method is"

    nipidoc, Aug 6, 2003
  4. Rishigg

    Kory Postma Guest

    The fact that the person is unlearning bad habits and becoming more
    relaxed and also having a clear mind and memory, that will improve the
    sight. I may be a little wrong, but this is what I remember after
    reading Bates.

    Kory Postma, Aug 7, 2003
  5. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    The area of useful sight for a person wearing glasses is reduced by the
    simple fact that glasses do not extend to the edges of the visual field.
    To say that more objects are drawn into the field skips the point.

    There are areas of visual information at the outer edges of the sight
    which become discarded by the person wearing glasses. Frames themeselves
    block light rays, and all rays beyond the edges of the frames are no
    longer perceived as useful. The retina thus becomes accustomed to
    working effectively over a contracted area. To say Minus lenses minify
    is quite correct, - they draw more information into an area of sight
    that has been contracted.

    It is well known that in general all myopes have a deterioration at the
    very edges of the retina as compared to people who have not worn

    An optometrist assumes that the deterioration is a result of being
    myopic. I would suggest that the fact that the person is trained into
    using a smaller area of the retina should not be ignored.

    Kevin, Aug 9, 2003
  6. Rishigg

    LarryDoc Guest


    Your statements are absolutely scientifically false.

    1. ALL myopes DO NOT have deterioration of the retina. Some do, some
    don't. For that matter, so do hyperopes. Some do, some don't. For that
    matter, so do people with no optical correction. Some do, some don't.
    And some people are born with a predisposition, and some people are
    simply born that way.

    2. Lattice degeneration, peripheral holes and tears have nothing to do
    with whether a person has worn glasses or not, and hardly to do with
    whether or not there is a refractive error. The only FACT we know for
    certain is that SOME people with enlongated axial length or who have a
    physical growth anomolgy thining the peripheral retina, or those who
    have had head trauma are at higher risk for "deterioration". Wearing
    glasses has nothing to with it. Hitting your head on the windshield
    because some loonatic crashed into you because s/he was Bate-d into not
    using optical correction is a definate potential cause.

    3. We don't ASSUME anything, We examine, we observe, we report.

    4. It is not a fact that a myope wearing glasses is trained into using a
    smaller area of the retina. The perihperal retina gets plently of
    stimulation----and whatever, it has nothing to do with peripheral retina


    Your statements are absolutely scientifically false. Like most
    everything Bates. But, your a zealot, a fanatic and nothing contrary to
    your position means a damn thing to you.

    LarryDoc, Aug 9, 2003
  7. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
    astonishing raeaction!

    I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
    wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
    possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
    a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.

    But your reaction is to me the very opposite of unassuming.
    Try responding to me again in a much less assumptive manner , then maybe
    your words won't sound so hollow.

    Kevin, Aug 10, 2003
  8. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    No, not quite - see my response to LarryDoc.

    I'm coming from the experience of teaching people the method, and one of
    the most common improvements is in the sensitivity of the peripheral
    vision. There needs to be some controlled studies done to verify/negate
    this observation, but in due course that will come about.

    Kevin, Aug 10, 2003
  9. Rishigg

    Jan Guest


    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
    Do not say Bates has no answer, contactlenses are already present at the
    time Bates wrote his book.
    Jan, Aug 11, 2003
  10. Rishigg

    LarryDoc Guest


    Heavens, Your points are interesting and I've noted them, but what an
    astonishing raeaction!

    I did not say 'degeneration at the edge of the retina is due to the
    wearing of glasses', I merely suggested that it not be ignored as a
    possible contributing factor in the causation of this condition. That's
    a line of enquiry, not a scientific proclamation.[/QUOTE]

    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 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 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 longer
    than 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?

    LarryDoc, Aug 11, 2003
  11. Rishigg

    Dan Abel Guest

    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, Aug 11, 2003
  12. Rishigg

    LarryDoc Guest

    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.)
    never seen any evidence of this.

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

    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.

    LarryDoc, Aug 11, 2003
  13. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    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 th
    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

    Kevin, Aug 15, 2003
  14. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    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.[/QUOTE]

    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

    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.
    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, Aug 15, 2003
  15. Be that as it may, I am now co-ordinator for a few pilot studies that

    Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!

    Nice to see you here!!!

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

    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.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 15, 2003
  16. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    I drop in and out occasionally.
    Doing very well thank you, no I haven't worn glasses once in over 15
    Well fact is you know very little of what I teach.

    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, Aug 15, 2003
  17. Hallo Mr. Wooding!!!
    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 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

    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.

    **** 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

    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

    I hope you will get to 20/20 soon, but if you still stick to your
    method, you won't reach.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 15, 2003
  18. Rishigg

    Kevin Guest

    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

    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, Aug 16, 2003
  19. My goodness Rishi, your incomprehension is about the most complete I've
    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.
    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





    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

    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


    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.
    Rishi Giovanni Gatti, Aug 16, 2003
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.