Talk:Bates method/Archive 2

message: Why sources should be cited
To credit a source for providing useful information and to avoid claims of plagiarism. 
To show that your edit isn't original research. 
To ensure that the content of articles is credible and can be checked by any reader or editor. 
To help users find additional reliable information on the topic. 
To improve the overall credibility and authoritative character of Wikipedia. 
To reduce the likelihood of editorial disputes, or to resolve any that arise. 
To ensure that material about living persons is reliably sourced and complies with Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. 
Note: Wikipedia articles and categories cannot be used as sources in and of themselves. Sources must be independent from Wikipedia.
Seeyou 21:17, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What exactly are you referring to here? Which citation seems to be the problem? I know why sources should be cited because I'm an academic. I cite sources day in, day out. Why the lecture??? Famousdog 21:37, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It appears some further clarification lies in Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2007-02-10 Bates Method. Cowman109Talk 23:10, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am surprised that this has gone to mediation, frankly. Here is my response to the arguments put forward by Seeyou on the mediation page: I am of the impression, firstly, that Seeyou is confusing a 'citation' with a 'quotation'. If his changes to the leader paragraph were a direct quotation of Quackenbush, then obviously such additions should not be changed. However, Seeyou's changes were not put in quotation marks and they were grammatically incorrect, suggesting that they are not a direct quotation of Quackenbush. I therefore believe that Seeyou's changes reflect his opinion - albeit an opinion which may have been formed after having read Quackenbush's book. If they are Seeyou's opinions, they are POV and do not belong in the article, certainly not in the leader. If they are Quackenbush's own words, they should be in quotation marks (and since Quackenbush appears to be pushing a minority viwepoint, his comments should either not be in the lead paragraph, or should be qualified with a counterargument). Secondly, I object to Seeyou's repeated assertions that I "do not understand" the BM, or am not using "common sense" or "real arguments" (in my opinion, "common sense" is usually informed by laziness and predjudice and should be looked upon with skepticism until informed by evidence). If only "trained Bates Method teachers" (i.e. those who already subscribe to that viewpoint) are qualified to discuss the Bates Method, then we may as well give up the whole scientific enterprise and just believe what anybody claiming to be an "expert" tells us. Seeyou needs to sort out, firstly, whether he/she is talking about a 'citation' or a 'quotation' and, secondly, stop asserting that I am not qualified to discuss this. Then we can proceed. Famousdog 15:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: book citation should stay original

message: :There are a few problems with the presbyopia lens-hardening-with-age theory. The biggest one is that there are many people who have lived well over the age of 40 who never became presbyopic. Even people 99 years old with perfect eyesight have been examined by eye doctors. These "old" people see clearly both far and near naturally, without glasses, contact lenses, surgery, drugs, etc. Since old-age non-presbyopia is a fact observed by essentially all eye doctors of any experience, one might wonder if older people who never become presbyopic are doing something different than the older people who become presbyopic. (I have never know anyone to suggest that presbyopia is hereditary, or any other reason for that matter, except the lens hardening of course.)
:While writing "Relearning to See" I contacted two eye doctors, an ophthalmologist and optometrist, to ask them what the mechanism of accommodation is for older people who have normal sight. Interestingly enough, both of them gave me the same answer. (These two eye doctors did not know each other.) Their answer was: "We don't know." What?! Before age 40, we are told that the lens/ciliary muscle is the mechanism of accommodation. After age 40, if a person has normal eyesight, we are told that the mechanism of accommodation is unknown! Of course I have thought about this strange situation a long time. (If anyone has an explanation from an eye doctor of how the eye accommodates in older people with normal eyesight, I would like to know.)
:The eye doctors are in a real dilemma here. If they say that the lens is the mechanism of accommodation for older people without presbyopia, then obviously there is a way for the lens to still change its curvature in older people---it obvious hasn't hardened, or at least not enough to prevent normal accommodation. But this would contradict their conventional teachings, and many (if not most?) eye doctors would probably not be willing to risk taking that position. After all Bates was ejected from his post of teaching ophthalmology due to his beliefs and teachings. If they maintain their position that the lens is hard and cannot change its curvature for anyone older than age 40, then these older people are accommodating in some other way---in which case the lens' ability to change its curvature could be considered irrelevant since the eye is obviously able to accommodate in some other way! A curious problem to say the least.   http://www.naturalvisioncenter.com/books.html#RTS%20anchor 'Books paragraph 4'
I moved this section here, because i see a lot of problems with it. Namely, is this a quote or is this original research? If its a quote it's too long (in fact, its probably a breach of copyright as well...) and its not in quotation marks. If its original research, it doesn't belong here unless you can find some more evidence to back it up. Quackenbush is not a reliable source as he is selling books promoting the Bates Method. Who is the "I" that is referred to in this paragraph? Is it SeeYou, who added the section, or is it Quackenbush? Famousdog 14:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The mechanism of accommodation for older people who have normal sight ?

message: Is this case still active or can I close it?  --Ideogram 07:03, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mediation request 

message: Hi all, decided to cull the links section. There's simply too much linkspam, sites advertising eye-exercises, pop-up ads (a sure sign of vested interest), etc. I've also removed multiple links to the same site. Frankly, offering a "free e-book" seems to be a common way to attract people to your site so you can sell them something else. Also, the recent "free e-book" posted by McFadyn says that it is "free for a limited time". Well, how long until that link is out of date? I think I'm justified in proactively ensuring this article stays relevant! Hope people agree. Famousdog 13:30, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CONTROVERSIAL, it is not rejected by rejected by mainstream medicine ! It is neglected. I have heard someone say promoting the bates method or Natural vision improvement is not about science it is about politics. For example look at AED and his contribution to wikipedia.  Seeyou 10:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard someone say: "Aliens abducted Elvis and brainwashed him into killing Princess Diana!" I think it was a tramp. If you can't provide a better citation for rejection of Bates being "political", why should we believe you? As for you argument: Study of the Bates Method is "neglected" because it has previously been rejected as useless and there is no point going over old arguments. And anyway, it is still studied by mainstream researchers: See the Rawston review, for example. They conclude that there's no evidence that eye exercises do anything helpful. Famousdog 13:54, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you're f*cking right it's speculation! It's also well-poisoning and bullsh*t. Making accusations of sockpuppetry is a great way to get yourself blocked, so just keep going buddy. I've no idea who AED is, apart from him being the guy that started WikiProject Ophthalmology. If you check out his talk page, you'll see a message from me asking him for assistance on the BM page. It would be a bit stupid of me to draw attention to myself that way wouldn't it? If you really care, I'm sure our IP addresses locate us on separate continents. Famousdog 13:59, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm appalled by this accusation so I'm taking this to arbitration. Famousdog 14:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Culled links 

message: > I just think the Bates Method is harmless rubbish, 
Answer : thinking something is different than to knowing something.
> What do you count as an improvement? 
Anwer : An increase in contrast sensitivity? > Better acuity? Yes. > Loss of diplopia? < == fusion !! more intense colours, 3D awareness. Being able to drive a car safely without glasses of course while this was not possible before, Being able to read fine print while this was not possible before, Being able to fuse the image of the right eye with the left eye into one combined image  etc. 
> You might see an improvement in one of these measures after training a subject in some way (perceptual learning),  but not in all of them simultaneously. Why is not it possible to combine improvements ?
Answer :  In my opinion a lot aspects of eyesight  interact with other. For example centralisation will influence movement of the eyes and neck ( head ). More movement will result in more awareness of one’s body and thus improvement of  posture.More movement will demand more energy. Which the body will adapt to . When the the ( exercise ) becomes a habit. 
> It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). 
Answer : The Batesmethod is focussed on getting rid of the chronic tension of the external musscles of the eye. 
> It depends what is wrong with the person's eyesight in the first place. Some problems can be solved (via surgery, patching, correction...) and some problems can't be solved (yet). Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything! The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system which can be prevented, usually by patching at the right age, but not cured (yet).
Answer: 
According to a second generation bates book ( Relearing to see ) the amblyopic eye or lazy eye is not lazy. It is tensed. It needs relaxation. NVI has a opposite aproach. You can improve amblyopia by getting rid of the extreme tension. Often the amblyopic has also a different shape. Often it is visible bigger. I have seen this change into normal ! 
The people who invented the newspaper did not invent the radio the people who invented the radio did not invent the television. The people who invent glasses, contact lenses and lasertreatments will not provide information to improve eyesight naturally !
There are also people with amblyopia who are surccesful with the Batesmethod. Did you never meet people who were succesful with the Batesmethod. See the newsgroups about this subject.
Amblyopia is one such problem that the Bates Method supposedly "improves." Now, I work all day every day with amblyopes and, believe me, they've tried everything! 
Answer : 
How about really give these people helpful information. For example the experiment with the monkeys. The problem is located in the brain in the case of amblyopia. People with amblyopia can improve their weak eye with their eyes closed ! How about telling these people their eye is not lazy but stressed. When you only stress something which is already stressed you are doing something wrong. My advice search for a really skilled teacher. He will not teach exercises He or she will teach habits
.
> Most of the amblyopes we see are very relaxed. Are the still relaxed when they are forced to look with their amblyopic eye ?
but it doesn't improve their eyesight one bit.  Have you ever talked about the subject with a succesful  batesteacher ?Some of them have tried either the BM or some derivitive method to no avail. 
Answer : Did you see the link in the amblyopia artcle. 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4436439.stm  
Is is very important the BM is properly educated. It is not only a program it is an educational program. The Batesmethod in WH Bates first book was not properly explained. Fortunatly there is a book available which give a far bettter explanation. ( This book is based on Bates his initial writings ) But stil it is very hard to learn the method only with this book. Is your opinion about the Batesmethod only based on bates his first book and Better eyesight magazines ? Mine is not.
> The problem is that Amblyopia is a developmental problem and it results in very complex changes to the visual system..
Answe : 
 I fully agree with you. And it is not possible to change it in a week. Improvement in small steps is possible. Natural vision improvement is the law of adaptation in the right direction. 
I have personally experienced a lot of improvement thanks to the initial work of Bates and the  generation of teachers who followed him. I hope you respect my point of view. 
When my speculation really was not true. I think you would have not reacted the way you did.
Also you did not  tell the truth about the rejection of natural vision improvement by mainstream medicine. Controversial is not the same as rejection
> Secondly, what do you mean by "naturally"? Everything that humans do - even driving F1 cars - is "natural" because humans have evolved according to the laws of nature.
Anwer : 
Naturally are the things our body have always been doing. When you see our body is lets say 20000 years old. F1 driving is not very natural. Running on the other hand is very natural. 
We are currently doing quite a lot of thing differently than let’s say 100 years ago. For example our food..
You seem to be using "natural" to mean "without glasses" or "without the help of an ophthalmologist".
Answer : 
No not without a ophthalmologist. Ophthalmologist should always be available and consulted. They will see what NVI can result in. And if there are real problems they can help. NVI can help people to take responsibility for themselves.
> How is improving your vision by following a set of instructions written over a century ago by a rogue ophthalmologist like Bates any more "natural" than taking the advice of a modern ophthalmologist who has an extra century of accumulated knowledge and experience to draw on? 
Answer : Bates first book is very hard to read and umderstand. Fortunatly others have made his method much more easy to understand. ( Janet Goodrich, Thomas Quackenbush for example )
The bates method had developed and still is ! That is why is is very good the second generation books are also in the article.
> Anyway, I hope that's helped to explain my position. If people want to try the BM then go ahead, but I and my colleagues think its a bloody waste of time and (invariably) money and I'll be damned if I let people write nonsense about it on Wikipedia without being challenged to support their arguments with reliable evidence 
Anwer : 
Again, It is not about science it is about politcs. 
Question to a eye doctor :
Retinal detachament happens more often when there is a high degree of myopia. Why ? It is by the way very hard to find a proper explanation in books. Bates has the answer. The myopic eye has a different shape. It is larger. Bates explains, this is the result of the extreme  tension in the oblique mussles. So when people succeed in getting rid of this tension. The myopic eye becomes normal and the risk of retinal detachment is gone. This is prevention. What can the orthodox do for people with a high degree of myopia, which keeps on becoming higher and higher, to prevent retinal detachment ? Seeyou 22:14, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And round and round and round we go... If you don't want to listen to any of my arguments, scientific evidence or experience and just keep making unsupported assertions, repeating old arguments made by quacks like Quackenbush and insisting that this is "political..." then go ahead. I'm not interested and neither is the Wikipedia arbitration committee it would seem. Just don't try to pass off your second-hand b*llsh*t as scientific fact. Famousdog 13:25, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As for that BBC story, I don't see your point. Its about patching and how it helps if administered properly. Patching the good eye releases the suppression on the bad eye, allowing the bad side of the visual system to develop more "normally". This is already widely known... Ophthalmologists have been patching for hundreds of years. Its the best therapy we have currently. How is that relevant to your assertions that Bates is cleverer than all the other vision specialists in the known universe? Famousdog 15:55, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: He who knows not, and knows he knows not. 
He is a child teach him
He who knows not, and does not know he knows not. 
He is a fool. Shun him
He who knows, and knows not he knows. 
He is asleep. Wake him.
He who knows, and knows he knows. 
He is wise. Follow him.
Seeyou 20:30, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure... whatever. Famousdog 19:16, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply 

message: Seeyou, whilst I have attempted to compromise and include your material, you are simply reverting my edits and this is getting f*cking tedious. Do it once more and I'll report you for 3RR.  Any luck finding a citation for that research that Beresford mentions? No, I thought not... Famousdog 16:30, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Keep going, you're almost in breach of 3RR 

message: Quite a few of the external links in this article violate the guideline on external links, in that they are primarily promotional, add nothing encyclopedic to the article, contain unverifiable research, etc. Wikipedia is not a collection of links, nor a clearinghouse for all links Bates-related or a substitute for Google. External links should be kept to a minimum (see WP:EL). Instead of fighting over expanding the external links section, the time would be better spent finding reliable sources among those links and incorporating the encyclopedic content from those sources directly into the article. MastCell Talk 22:25, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your goal is to disprove the "skeptics" or demonstrate that the Bates method actually works, then I'd encourage you to find reliable sources supporting the method's effectiveness and cite them in the body of the article. Tacking on a laundry list of external links which explicitly fail the guidelines to try and make the point isn't appropriate. MastCell Talk 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, Seeyou, you are fighting this battle in the 'external links' section because you cannot win it in the text of the article by (as MastCell rightly says) citing reliable sources that demonstrate the effectiveness of the Bates method. Stating that you, personally, have improved your vision or think that some links are "okay" is hardly a sufficient criterion for inclusion. There are over 6 billion people in the world. You are just one. In addition, providing multiple links to the same web site (Visions of Joy, for example) is excessive. One link is sufficient. Famousdog 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: It is interesting to see those testimonials really made some change to the external links.
In my opinion a bit weak of our sceptics to remove them. It looks like they do not want to see there might be people who have really improved their eyesight.
A lot of people will have trouble believing eyesight can improve naturally. The possibility and prove eyesight can be summarized in three words law of adaptation ! Only by saying this law is untrue you can say Natural vision improvement is impossible.
Of course these testimonials can be fake, but I am also one of these persons successful in improving my eyesight. So for me it is very hard to believe these testiomonials are fake..
Also an argument to leave Meir Schneider’s site present is for example what health professionals like Creig Hoyt, MD, ( Chairman of the Ophthalmology Department and Director of the Beckman Vision Center ) say about Natural vision improvement. 
Again I find it very hard to believe this information is fake or not reliable.
So in my opinion the link : 
Link 1. http://www.self-healing.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=35&Itemid=85 
&
link 2 http://www.visionsofjoy.org/testimonials.htm
should be listed.
Also link 3 :
http://www.visionsofjoy.org/visionlinks.htm 
A list of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites should stay. This link provides interested people a worldwide help to find a teacher or information.
Problem for the NVI movement is there is not really a site which represents the NVI movement as a whole. The link : [http://www.visionsofjoy.org/visionlinks.htm 
A list of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites was the best site I could find. Most sites pronote only themselves and product but site gives information of teachers and schools worldwide.
The other sites :
*Central-Fixation.com
*Imagination Blindness
*I-See.org
*Vision Improvement Site
*List of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites
http://www.central-fixation.com 
Is okay but also available in link 3
http://www.iblindness.org is okay, but is also in link 3
http://www.visioneducators.org is okay offers worldwide links  for teachers & teachertraining. The other link 3 contains more worldwide links.
http://www.i-see.org/related.html worldwide extra links. Should be in the list.
www.visionimprovementsite.com not in the list commercial site.
My conclusion to represent the unskeptic part of this article the following links should be listed :
Testimonials :
*what people say about
*testimonials
external links 
*List of 100 worldwide Natural Vision Improvement websites
*www.i-see.org
Gladly read your feedback Mastcell.
Seeyou 16:40, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If your goal is to disprove the "skeptics" or demonstrate that the Bates method actually works, then I'd encourage you to find reliable sources supporting the method's effectiveness and cite them in the body of the article. Tacking on a laundry list of external links which explicitly fail the guidelines to try and make the point isn't appropriate. MastCell Talk 17:20, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In my opinion, Seeyou, you are fighting this battle in the 'external links' section because you cannot win it in the text of the article by (as MastCell rightly says) citing reliable sources that demonstrate the effectiveness of the Bates method. Stating that you, personally, have improved your vision or think that some links are "okay" is hardly a sufficient criterion for inclusion. There are over 6 billion people in the world. You are just one. In addition, providing multiple links to the same web site (Visions of Joy, for example) is excessive. One link is sufficient. Famousdog 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reply :

message: I find this section sketchy and inaccurate.
'Relaxation is at the core of the Bates method' - yes, but not just relaxation. What Bates described as 'mental control' is equally important. It is about a feedback mechanism between mental and physical relaxation, achieved by the use of memory and imagination. See the chapter on Memory and Imagination in 'Perfect Eyesight" by Bates.
> Chaper 13 & 14.. I will read these chapters and make notes. Seeyou 20:35, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bates' technique 

message: If the seeclearlymethod is equal to the batesmethod. The batesmethod is illegal.
So then you can also delete or redirect this page to something else. maybe redirect this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ophthalmology or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Ophthalmology.Seeyou 20:16, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Other users and contributors, please be aware that User:Seeyou appears to be under the mistaken impression that I am the same person as User:AED. His justification for this is that we both seem to know a bit about ophthalmology/vision and AED seems to have stopped contributing around the same time that I joined Wikipedia. Having had many of his edits reverted by myself and others, Seeyou has now taken to accusing me of sockpuppetry rather than trying to be constructive. I took this to mediation, but alas, it was ignored. Nobody seems interested. I suspect that what I did to provoke this recent cyber-stalker outburst from Seeyou, was to redirect the See Clearly Method page to the Bates page. I did this because the See clearly method page was "orphaned" and I thought it would be relevant here. Seeyou clearly disagrees. Fine. I will not redirect this page again and instead, I'm sure that some editor will soon delete it because it is ORPHANED. Seeyou will no doubt then accuse me of having the page deleted or deleting it myself under another guise... and so on and so forth... Famousdog 15:59, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Famousdog And / or AED ( Both Eye Doctors ) 

message: Find a Bates Method teacher worldwide
*Bates Method Teachers listed by country/area
This is not spam. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam.
Seeyou 21:17, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a list of Bates practitioners advertising their services. How is it not spam? However, I will wait for somebody else delete it in order to keep you happy. Famousdog 21:16, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A list is a list. It provides information. It does not fit any definition of spam I managed to find in a few minutes of Internet searches. Maybe the problem is more one of pseudosceptic prejudice. (RichardKingCEng 21:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is borderline spam, and definitely unencyclopedic. Wikipedia is not a directory or an indiscriminate collection of potentially "useful" information - it's an encyclopedia, and this link is not encyclopedic. MastCell Talk 22:05, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It is false that "A list is a list." On Wikipedia, lists of commercial providers are not mere "lists", they constitute advertising. Some commerical sites provide enough valid information to justify their inclusion in some people's eyes, but a mere directory does not. Also a site that has no information not available from non-commercial sources would not qualify. At the very least, Bates practitioners will have to develop a "cut-out" site that has actual unique and encyclopedic information or provide a link to such a page in the existing site. Tackiness doesn't help either. DCDuring 22:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

text: It makes sense for an article about Volkswagon, the car manufacturer, to have links to the company's website, because the article is about the company. I would not consider this spam. What you are advocating is to add links to every car manufacturer into the article Automobile. A quick glance at this article shows that this behaviour is not viewed lightly! I would accept a link to the See Clearly Method website on the See Clearly Method page, because the article is specific to that company (except they don't exist anymore, so there's no point). You are making a category error, mixing up fruit with apples. Famousdog 13:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

text: [Sigh] I don't see the connection. The Yoga page has no links to corporate sites (good), the Shiatsu page has several and is therefore poorly monitored and unencyclopedic (bad), and the Tai Chi article has links to some organisations and videos (possibly spam). So what? I reiterate: Wikipedia is not a collection of links it is an encyclopedia. Take the Encyclopedia Brittanica - does it have lists of all snake oil salesmen under the article Snake Oil? No. Famousdog 13:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Of course; this is Wikipedia; amateur defintions and pseudosceptisism rules. (RichardKingCEng 13:21, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fake argument removal 

message: As the CEO of the American Vision Institute, Inc. and one of the creators of the See Clearly Method, I am deeply concerned that the article on the See Clearly Method misrepresents the American Vision Institute, the See Clearly Method, the doctors who created the See Clearly Method, and the State of Iowa lawsuit. Today, I posted a rewrite of the article stating the facts about these matters.  Much to my dismay, the rewrite was promptly deleted and replaced by the previous inaccurate article.  For the record, my rewrite is given below.  It is my sincere wish that if Wikipedia considers my rewrite to be a conflict of interest, that a responsible person will render the material into a form that is compatible with Wikipedia's policies so that the article on the See Clearly Method is accurate and truthful. 
SMBeresford 22:37, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Your statement contains essentially an attack and allegation of significant wrongdoing against the Attorney General. As such it is wholly inappropriate for inclusion anywhere on Wikipedia (including the talk page) unless backed by verifiable, reliable sources. Please see our policy on biography of living people, for example. If such sources exist, the information can be added to the article. However, Wikipedia is not a forum to advance your spin on the issue or refight it. MastCell Talk 03:59, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Clearly Method Article Corrections Deleted 

message: For the ones unaware of the total history of this article and discussion about this article.
It is off course speculation, but there is a very big chance AED ( a eye doctor ), famousdog, Mastcel and SMBeresford in reality is one person. 
It is also possible AED is being paid by regular opthalmology. See for example how many edits AED has made in the past.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/AED  Seeyou 12:40, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Always refreshing to see a single-purpose account pushing a very distinct POV accuse others of a conflict of interest. However, if you feel that one or more editors are using multiple accounts abusively (as detailed in the sockpuppetry policy), you can open a case at the suspected sockpuppetry board. You will probably want evidence first, though. MastCell Talk 04:57, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: MastCell, are you me? I was quite surprised to find out that I was user AED! Now apparently I'm SMBeresford, which is strange since his posts have been very pro-SeeClearlyMethod, whereas I am a sceptic on that point. Frankly, I'm more of the opinion that SMBeresford is either Steven Beresford or Seeyou her/himself. Nice to see that Seeyou can't even get your name right Mastcel (sic)! People in glass houses shouldn't throw stones and I strongly suspect that Seeyou is indulging in a little sockpuppetry her/himself - since s/he can't make any useful edits. Famousdog 13:05, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the ones unaware AED, famousdog, Mastcel & SMBeresford might be one person. 

message: So, according to WP:EL, the DA's court order goes too as it appears in a citation. But my point about the DMOZ list of vision links (not specific to this topic) is still relevant and I-See should be clearly labelled as promoting the bates method or NVI to avoid conflicts of interest. Famousdog 13:42, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links 

message: I removed this section:
Because it has been tagged for months (anything that simply refers to "scientists" without telling us who they are is to be mistrusted), it doesn't seem to be relevant to the preceding paragraphs (what "genetic theory"?) and its also a complete lie. Animal researchers routinely create strabismus in monkeys to investigate amblyopia. For example, there are several papers on strabismus and amblyopia published in the last decade by Kiorpes and Movshon in which they artifically induce strabismus in macaque monkeys. Famousdog 13:25, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Monkeys 

message: Just thought I'd flag some unusual activity on this page. Between 24-29th November 2007, there were several rather pro-Bates edits made by anonymous users whose ISPs are registered in Germany, Austria, Russia, France and the Netherlands. Maybe I'm being paranoid, but the fact that all users were anonymous, the edits were made within a short time period and they all seemed roughly in agreement with each other all made it seem quite 'coordinated'. Somebody may have requested help on an international mailing list (in which case this counts as Meatpuppetry and is frowned upon), or perhaps the one person acting alone has managed to fake their IP address. Either way, a little odd I think. Famousdog (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent unusual activity 

message: Some examples of famousdog contributions to the bates method article.
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Famousdog&diff=128252617&oldid=95096585
( famousdog lists the batesmethod under Pseudoscience ! )
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=99329620&oldid=99107773 
( famousdog saying the mind is the brain ?! )
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=174433324&oldid=174431966 
( great contribution but \martin Garder was not an Optometrists or ophthalmologists but a popular American mathematics and science writer )
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=167207674&oldid=167019914 
( The genetic theory is the suggestion of the orthodox vision problems are genetic, but scientists still have not found any proof in our DNA )
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=109306766&oldid=109306034
( famosudog editing published information )
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bates_method&diff=124083867&oldid=124052301 
( famousdog showing no respect to an editor )
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&limit=500&target=AED 
( When you can make this amount of edits you are being paid. Does wikipedia really give objective information ?! Note these edits were done in less then a month !!! And look at what kind of articles these edits are made !)
Seeyou (talk) 17:31, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Paid editing is not a breach of any policy necessarily (but it does bring up a COI question).  Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, so... Where's your evidence of palm, greasing? -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 20:33, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I resent the implication that I am being paid. In fact I am simply interested in this topic and have therefore made time in my (busy) schedule to make sure that this page is not hijacked by Bates practitioners and Bates advocates. Seeyou's behaviour amounts to harrassment, cyberstalking and clearly a personal attack. All of which are, I believe, discouraged on Wikipedia. Lets see if I that's enough to get you banned, since you haven't made a useful edit in MONTHS. Famousdog (talk) 14:02, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Gone to arbitration. Famousdog (talk) 14:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. See here. Famousdog (talk) 14:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 1 of x 

message: Removed this as per wp:quote. Quotation is too long (thereby lengthening an already lengthy article), is virtually stand-alone and doesn't really add anything concrete to the article. Its an instruction to "try it for yourself" and doesn't shed any more light on Bates' theories or method than material that is already in the article. If its necessary to have such unwieldy quotes to "understand" Bates' method, perhaps this quote could be moved to Wikiquote, and linked to from here. And finally, could all these anonymous users please get Wikipedia accounts rather than hiding behind a mask of anonymity!? Famousdog (talk) 16:44, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "fundamental principle" section 

message: From the neutral point of view and the quality of this article it is important to give the explanation of the method of the point of view which refers to 
* the advocates of the batesmethod, 
* the skeptics and 
* opthalmology.
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Npov
The neutral point of view
The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being judged as "the truth", in order that the various significant published viewpoints are made accessible to the reader, not just the most popular
Seeyou (talk) 07:22, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 2 of x 

message: Look also at the other paragraphs for the objective reader. To understand and see what is happening.
I hope an Administrator sees what is happening gives this article some kind of protection.
Seeyou (talk) 12:09, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 5 of x 

message: === to IP address : 125.116.17.28; 81.64.210.51; 80.249.115.146, and ... ,===
* Reverted to more organized, less repetetive version 
* Eye exercises are not the Bates method, and Gardner quote is already 
in "Efficacy" section 
* Previous version is overly repetitive and removes steps taken to organize article
I do not agree with your edit. It is important to explain there are three points of view regarding the batesmethod. All three opinions should be mentioned in the introduction equally  because of the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia
If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address : - )
Seeyou (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 6 of x 

message: * Reverted to more organized, less repetetive version 
* Eye exercises are not the Bates method, and Gardner quote is already 
in "Efficacy" section 
* Previous version is overly repetitive and removes steps taken to organize article
I do not agree with your edit. It is important to explain there are three points of view regarding the batesmethod. All three opinions should be mentioned in the introduction equally  because of the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia
If you are an anonymous user, you may create an account or log in to avoid future confusion with other anonymous users. Registering also hides your IP address : - )
Seeyou (talk) 20:01, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  to IP address : 125.116.17.28; 81.64.210.51; 80.249.115.146, and ... ,

message: The five pillars of wikipedia :
See : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Five_pillars
Seeyou (talk) 08:47, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 8 of x 

message: *  This version is very NPOV accordig to multiple IP Address
There are three different parties. All three should be mentioned !
With their reference off course.
The opthalmology reference is very important. If we did not have this reference the Batesmethod would still be quackery.
Can you reply in this discussuon page.
Why can't you create a username and are you using multiple IP-adresses ?
Or do you really want to make us believe you are different people.
Seeyou (talk) 11:44, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 9 of x 

message: to number xyz,
> First, the Rawstron source (  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744  )is not about Bates. It does not mention him, any of his particular techniques, or his concept of undoing visual strain to improve eyesight.
That is true, And that is exactly the reason why it should stay. Don’t  you think it is strange that ophthalmology does not say anything about Bates his method specific. This reference is the closest information about the Batesmethod I have ever read. If the batesmethod is quackery why does not ophthalmology say and explain it to the public ?!. The Batesmethod is almost 100 years old and still being taught and explained. New books are published etc. And ophthalmology only talks about exercises ! As long as there is no better reference than the current one it is very important these reference stays in the introduction. I don’t mind if this reference changes in future for a better reference. Main thing is ophthalmology is in the list with their opinion about eye-exercises. They are the authority ! Let the public determine by themselves what the batesmethod is. Maybe they think Martin Gardnes is right. ( I think he is partly right ) Maybe the batesmethod is only doing eye-exercises. Something even Batesteachers still think. 
> Second, the Gardner quote is already in the article, in the efficacy section. Then it should be removed there. Gardner should be in the introduction. That is the neutral point of view policy of wikipedia !
> The opening had already described what the Bates method is and explained why it is controversial. ( The Batesmethod is controversial because ophthalmology indirectly says so. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15825744 )
In my opinion the introduction has become worse. The words chosen for example undo faulty vision habits instead of correcting faulty vision habits is stupid.
It is suggesting the batesmethod is an instant solution. Correcting is much better and closer to the truth. Since if you do the right things, ant you do not want a quick fix for your eyes. You do not compensate your eyesight, you correct your eyesight by correcting your visionhabits.
> Finally, if it is just the opening you are concerned about, edit that only. Your edits are undoing improvements made elsewhere in the article
In the past I only revised the introduction You ignored me. And you are a bit strange by using multiple IP-addresses. It creates diffusion. Gladly read your reply number abc.
Seeyou (talk)  —Preceding comment was added at 20:36, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 10 of x. 

message: To the multiple IP-addresses case 1,
> moved Quackenbush quote to "natural vision improvement", since it is not how Bates himself defines his method). Fake-argument. Bates did not even call his method the Bates method.  Authorities like Thomas Quackenbush have studied the material thoroughly ( Simply look into his books he constantly refers to what Bates wrote. ), and can perfectly define the batesmethod  
It is absurd this definition is at the end of the article. 
THIS IS NOT THE NPOV POLICY OF WIKIPEDIA !!!!!!
Gladly read your reply on the discussion page Number xyz.
To the multiple IP-addresses case 2,
The chosen words undo faulty vision habits are not the right words. It is correcting  faulty vision habits. To undo something is something else then  correcting something. It is the mechanical explantion by mechanical people. You can also say people with a number. Gladly read your reply on the discussion page. Number xyz.
Anser Multiple IP addresses : ....
Seeyou (talk) 17:45, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding the "undo"/"correct" discussion, I remember a similar argument with Seeyou over whether the Bates method was a "program" or an "educational program". It eventually lead to mediation, so prepare for a long fight, anonymous user. Part of the problem with this article is Bates' and Quackenbush's own vague use of terms like "strain" which leaves them open to far too much interpretation. But then again, I guess that's what I would say, being a "mechanical person" as Seeyou seems to be calling anybody who shows a shred of scientific rigour. Famousdog (talk) 11:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  2 cases which should be discussed 

message: > It shows that the Bates method is about undoing habitual strain. 
No, it is not. According to Thomas Quackenbush his definition ( staying very close to Bates in his book with references ).The batesmethod is about relearning the correct vision habits. The result of this will be that the habitual strain will decrease. ( the word undo suggests to me you can do it instantly but in general it will take time for your eyes and you to adapt by thge law of adaptation. ). You skip a very important step ! When you just undo the strain you will not get there. Just undoing the habitual strain won’t do the job. The proof is in the article below.
Source : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bates_method
The concept that relaxing the extra-ocular muscles can reliably or predictably reduce refractive error has not been substantiated by patients whose muscles are loosened during strabismus surgery.
My concern is that "correct" as a verb would imply to many people an effort, whereas Bates was emphatic that seeing well required no effort and that effort to see is, in fact, the underlying cause of vision problems.
When people are properly educated by a skilled batesteacher, correct will be absolutely no problem.
In contrary it will make them understand what they should strive for. 
By changing : 
* which aims to undo what Bates claimed are strained vision habits.
Into 
* which aims to relearn the correct relaxed vision habits and reverse the habitual strain.
Our disagreement is n't there any more. I think / hope ?
Again It makes also clear the current position of T.Quackenbush his definition is absurd !
But we also got to respect what other people and especially authorities think of the influence of the external eye-muscles on vision. And they should all be in the introduction. The reason NPOV.
I can not imagines the exercises of the rawstron reference for strabismus is not about the external eye-muscles so indirectly it is about Bates his method ! And thus should be in the introduction. 
> whereas Bates was emphatic that seeing well required no effort and that effort to see is, in fact, the underlying cause of vision problems. 
So relaxation in combination with the correct vision habits should be the goal and should be mentioned in the introduction of this article. ( It is mentioned ) When you achieve this your habitual strain will  decrease and the eyeball will gets its normal or improved shape. Making it possible for the ciliary muscle to project the object looked at on the retina. It takes time but it is possible. Many people have done it.
> Some Bates advocates have expressed the view that Quackenbush's work is off-base in some respects, and recommend just reading Bates' original book. 
Can you give a reference of this statement ? I am interested. I find Bates original book very hard to understand. Do they also give facts and arguments why ?
At any rate, his definition of someone else's method is an interpretation, and best left to the section of the article which deals with Quackenbush's field, "Natural Vision Improvement".
We all interpret the mehod from a point of view and give it a name and description. Bates did not want people to call his method the Bates method. We did ! Bates called his method natures way of seeing. In other words 
*  W.H. Bates called it = = >  Natures way of seeing 
*  We call it = = >    Bates method 
*  We can also call it, if we want  = = > Natural Vision improvement.
I do not see any difference all three descriptions can refer to the same way / system.
( By the way wikipedia’s aricle Natural vision improvement directs you to this article.)
Gladly read your reply number xyz.
Seeyou (talk) 20:16, 1 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 11 of x 

message: You must be very ignorant to deny this article is not being edited by skeptic editors.
Skeptic editors ridicule the method also in this article. Just read these three edits :
Initinal info :
But he never renounced the claim, set forth in Perfect Sight Without Glasses, that looking directly at the sun even with open eyes could not cause irreversible damage.
Advocate  edit : 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195631148&oldid=195461884
Skeptic edit by famousdog or AED : 
* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195653612&oldid=195631613
Seeyou (talk) 20:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 13 of x 

message: You must be very ignorant to deny this article is not being edited by skeptic editors.
Skeptic editors ridicule the method also in this article. Just read these three versions of explaining :
THESE EDITS SIGNAL WHY THE NEUTRALITY OF THIS ARTICLE IS DISPUTED !
Initinal info :
But he never renounced the claim, set forth in Perfect Sight Without Glasses, that looking directly at the sun even with open eyes could not cause irreversible damage.
Advocate  edit : 
 Skeptics often use open eyelid sunning to ridicule his method as is done above. However Bates did withdraw his claim regarding open eyelid sunning.
Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass. </ref>
Reference :* http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195631148&oldid=195461884
Skeptic edit by famousdog or AED : 
Bates did temper his claims regarding open eyelid sunning in later editions of his magazine, Better Eyesight.
Sunning : Let the sun shine on your closed eyelids for short intervals. Choose preferably the early morning sunlight. It is the light rays which benefit the eyes rather than the heat rays. The sun loses some of its effect when it comes through glass</ref>
Reference : * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Bates_method&diff=195653612&oldid=195631613
Seeyou (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Anyone see anything in the comments above that meet WP:TALK?  I won't remove it again without some consensus. --Ronz (talk) 16:35, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: (sigh) Seeyou continues his policy of harrassment... again the sockpuppetry accusation comes up in his suggestion that Famousdog and AED are the same user. Dividing users into "skeptics" and "advocates" is divisive and unhelpful. Yada yada yada, we have said all this before... Famousdog (talk) 02:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  For the objective reader part 13 of x #2 

message: ===Complications===
Complications due to contact lens wear affect roughly 4% of contact lens wearers each year.John Stamler. "Contact Lens Complications." eMedicine.com. September 1, 2004. Excessive wear of contact lenses, particularly overnight wear, is associated with most of the safety concerns. Problems associated with contact lens wear may affect the eyelid, the conjunctiva, the various layers of the cornea, and even the tear film that covers the outer surface of the eye.
Seeyou (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is off-topic waffle. I'd remove it but Seeyou will have a tantrum! What exactly is the point of it? Famousdog (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. This is your response to my arguing that contact lenses are "natural." Fine - poking yourself in the eye, looking at the Sun, doing that thing where you turn your eyelids inside out (yuck) are all "natural" because humans (who are natural results of natural selection in a natural universe) can, and do, do them. Whether they are good for you is a different matter. You have pointed out that contact lenses have some minor problems associated with them. Fine. They do. However, I was arguing that "unnatural-ness" is not a valid criticism of them. In the same way that it is not a valid criticism of homosexuality (another debate in which "naturalness" is often incorrectly and unfairly invoked). Famousdog (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please explain why this discussion meets WP:TALK, otherwise it will be deleted as more of off-topic, promotional distractions that are all so common on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: From the wikipedia article contact lens / contacts

message: Complications due to contact lens wear affect roughly 4% of contact lens wearers each year.John Stamler. "Contact Lens Complications." eMedicine.com. September 1, 2004. Excessive wear of contact lenses, particularly overnight wear, is associated with most of the safety concerns. Problems associated with contact lens wear may affect the eyelid, the conjunctiva, the various layers of the cornea, and even the tear film that covers the outer surface of the eye.
Seeyou (talk) 15:45, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This is off-topic waffle. I'd remove it but Seeyou will have a tantrum! What exactly is the point of it? Famousdog (talk) 20:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see. This is your response to my arguing that contact lenses are "natural." Fine - poking yourself in the eye, looking at the Sun, doing that thing where you turn your eyelids inside out (yuck) are all "natural" because humans (who are natural results of natural selection in a natural universe) can, and do, do them. Whether they are good for you is a different matter. You have pointed out that contact lenses have some minor problems associated with them. Fine. They do. However, I was arguing that "unnatural-ness" is not a valid criticism of them. In the same way that it is not a valid criticism of homosexuality (another debate in which "naturalness" is often incorrectly and unfairly invoked). Famousdog (talk) 21:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

text: Please explain why this discussion meets WP:TALK, otherwise it will be deleted as more of off-topic, promotional distractions that are all so common on this talk page. --Ronz (talk) 17:31, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Complications

message: Just a heads up, but in the last week, several identified Tor open proxies have been used to edit this article, which ought to be cause for concern:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
* (already blocked)
There are a whole bunch of other IPs which are not obviously open proxies, but perhaps someone who knows what he or she is doing could actually check. --Calton | Talk 05:06, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank Christ somebody has finally noticed this. Dunno what a Tor open proxy is, but I hope we can stop whoever it is editing in this anonymous manner. Famousdog (talk) 19:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The Onion Router (Tor) is an anonymity network using different proxies that allows a user to act as if they had a different external IP address, which is useful if you're trying to get around censorship but useless if you want to edit Wikipedia, as open and anonymizing proxies are barred from editing. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:12, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Open proxies

message: Okay. This is a f***ing joke. I've just reverted Seeyou's reversion for the trillionth time and I'm getting pretty f***ing bored with this game. MastCell, Jeske and myself seem to be happy with the version that Seeyou finds sooooooo offensive. That's 3 against 1, I reckon (ignoring any anonymous users) but I suppose Seeyou is just going to argue that MastCell and Jeske are my sockpuppets in the same way that I am a sockpuppet of AED and various other users... and so on and so on and so on forever and ever and ever ad infinatum... Mediation and arbitration have lead nowhere on this issue. Can we get Seeyou's disruptive account blocked PLEASE??? Famousdog (talk) 21:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggest WP:AN/I and provide diffs showing a problem.  This is beyond content to behavioral, and thus AN/I can now deal with it. And if he accuses ANYONE of being a sockpuppet, he'd better have the evidence to back it up, or else. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consensus? 

message: I've opened the mediation cabal request that User:Seeyou filed here Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2008-01-07 Bates method and will be serving at the mediator of it, unless anyone objects.  I've reviewed the diffs Seeyou provided and the current version of the article, as well as about the last month of talkpage contents.  At this point I've noticed somethings that lead me to general comments.
*1. Despite the length of the talk-age, I see very few WP:AGF discussions, and much pontificating, essying, and talking past other users.  
*2. I believe the article can use some stylistic improvments, as well as further sourcing of certain statements, to avoid non-NPOV, OR statements.
*3. I do not see a previous WP:RFC or WP:3O filed in this matter.  While I as a mediator can help bring disagreeing parties together, I feel that sometimes more registered voices will add to discussion.
*4. I've seen at least a couple accusations thrown around wildly here and on other related pages.  So I'll remind all involved parties of WP:CIVIL and that the mediation cabal process is 100% voluntary.  In and of itself, this process cannot block, ban or censor a user.  Also, all accusations of sock-puppetry, bad faith, or pov-pushing, should be clearly back up by evidence (diffs, page histories, etc) and taken to the proper forum, such as WP:SSP. 
*5. At this point, I would like the involved parties to state what they disagree with in the tone of the current version of it.  Specifically, how version X is not WP:NPOV.  I'm not looking for super-long quotes, more possibly several short descriptive sentences. MBisanz talk 20:46, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, MBisanz. Maybe now we can all get on with our lives. Famousdog (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation case about introduction

message: So I've heard from both sides on this matter, read into an interesting thing I'd never heard of before, and have some concluding opinions.
*1. Mediation is not a process that blocks a user or automatically ends vandalism, those are things that are done in other forums.  Mediation is a voluntary dispute resolution process that does not assess penalties to either party.
*2. In reviewing this case, it seems there is an existing consensus among several users.  This consensus is not to be taken lightly.  Evidence of off-wiki support for a position, is not the same as on-wiki discussion.  Further, as long as consensus is support by reliable sources and presented in a NPOV and does not violate a legal policy such as BLP, I am of the opinion that it should be given paramount respect. 
*3. Further, as an independent third party, knowing nothing of the topic at hand, but having a year of college bio, a year of college chemistry and half a year of physics, I am of the opinon that the current version  meets Wikipedia's standards for neutrally, factually, and fairly, presenting the topic at hand.  While there could be some stylistic changes in layout, I do not see any disputable content.
*4. In light of my inability (and unwillingness) to do what the parties seem to want, namely to block a user (WP:AN/I, WP:AN, WP:ARBCOM) or stop all vandalism (WP:RFPP), I am therefore closing this case. 
MBisanz talk 18:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, MBisanz. Maybe now we can all get on with our lives. Famousdog (talk) 22:35, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: > (http://brain.berkeley.edu/pub/1952%20April%20Flashes%20of%20Clear%20Vision.pdf) is damning of the Bates method specifically. 
Yes it refers to the original old Batesmethod  But the original batesmethod has developed itself into a new modern one. The Batesmethod nowadays has improved in many ways. Most importantly in its explanation. Janet Goodrich has for example been very important by introducing creative tools like the nosepointer, pencil, feather the beadgame etc. This appears to be a bit childish but is very helpful in understanding and teaching !. She also says in her book The original Batesbook has gathered dust on many bookshelves. In other words it is not a great book to read and to really learn and understand natures system. What I am trying to say is the Batesmethod Marg talks about is not the same as the Batesmethod nowadays. Teachers have developed many tools in explaining and giving instructions based on scientific facts.
> There is little recent research from ophthalmology on the Bates method for the simple fact that most ophthalmologists agree with Marg that it is nonsensical pseudoscience and best ignored. Looking at het rawstron review at least 44 scientists ignored Elwin Margs report. So that is not true. Recently I have heard there is also a German professor in ophthalmology who reports significant results in the effects of relaxation on cataract. See : http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/search/ref=pd_lpo_ix_dp_dn_de_uk_de?keywords=ilse%20strempel&tag=lpo%5Fixdpdndeukde-21&index=blended published in July 2002 !
Off course you will react with this is not Batesmethod, but again the Batesmethod is also about principles. The most important ones are relaxation and movement. This German Professor in ophthalmology emphasizes on the importance of relaxation !
> accused me of vandalism.. If you want, I will explain why, no problem.
> Firstly, a practitioners belief should not come into a discussion on potentially saving somebody sight! I am not a practitioner I am just an editor in this article. I just want to improve the quality of this article and to be objective.
> Concepts crucial to the Bates method (like "strain") are so poorly defined and open to interpretation, as to be useless. That is your opinion ntt mine.
Sorry famousdog I do not understand why the almost 60 year old reference of a single person has more weight then the 3 year old rawstron review linked to many researchers.
The argument the rawstron link is about exercises and not about the Bates method is not valid, because the Batesmethod is also about principles ( movement and relaxation ). I can not imagine the exercises of the rawstronlink are not focussed on movement.
And it also appears to me the Elwin Margs report is put on the Berkely website just for this wikipedia article. I can not find a link on the website directly to the pdf file.( google idem ). In other words it is a created link. So it shows ophthalmology only wants to explain when they are forced to explain.
Gladly read your reply. Seeyou (talk) 21:02, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Onus is on the editor to provide reasons to change the consensus.  I see none.  Stop beating around the bush and provide sources that rebut the claims, please, or drop the stick. -Jéské (Blah v^_^v) 21:32, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

text: I believe your looking for Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration and hasn't this article been there and been turned down? Did you ever think of running a WP:RFC? MBisanz talk 13:37, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Don’t be fooled