> You identified it previously. "fanatic". and reasoning with
> a fanatic is an exercise in futility isn't it?

> > I thought you had an anlytical brain.
> Oh - and while I'm venting, you are a blind fool if you
> think you still stand ANY hope of convincing the populace
> in this group of your views. Why you haven't given up is
> beyond me - perhaps you secretly revel in the combative
> dynamic.

> You're beginning to sound obsessed with it. Stopping your child from
> doing close things because of some perceived later benefit is likely
> to do more harm to her development than anything else. If she can see
> then let it be for a couple of years. Let her do what she wants to
> and don't discourage her from reading or enjoying books.. sooner or
> later she will pick up on your anxiety and then you'll pay!
> > i prefer to wait with the glasses but fear the amblyopia. my daughter does
> > not seem to have any problems seeing close. she likes to color and read(well
> [quoted text clipped - 60 lines]
> > > > > -MT

> Errr, "as time goes on"? The only positive/neutral response
> I've seen was from some kid under the influence of
> mushrooms. and even he moved on rather quickly.

> Thankfully, as time goes on, more and more people see
> this fact. Soon enough, you proclamations about Leung and
> chinamyopia will receive the same response as "Lose
> Weight Now!! Ask Me How!!"

> Good question! I enjoy good friends and a "dynamic" conversation
> which may help a few work in a "positve" (no pun intended)
> relationship with an OD.

> I thought you had an anlytical brain.

> I thought you had an anlytical brain.

> i prefer to wait with the glasses but fear the amblyopia. my daughter does
> not seem to have any problems seeing close. she likes to color and read(well
> pretend that she is reading). i try lately to limit how much close work she
> is doing. i have noticed that sometimes when she looks at pictures or books
> she holds them real close and other times arms distance. i have read that 2
> yearolds will often put things close to there face. i have noticed lately
> that she is starting to keep the books further away. she is keeping more arms
> distance than close. the other day my wife was showing her wallet size
> pictures from my wifes arms distance while my daughter sat in her lap. my
> daughter said who each of the pictures were of and did not try to move closer.
> sometimes my daughter wows us with distant vision. my one year old was waving
> at a large picture of a baby on our wall that was bout 12 feet away. my 2
> year old goes "thats Pooh up there". on top of the picture there was a 4x6 of
> herself and winnie the pooh. i might have shown it to her maybe a year ago so
> i dont know if she justs remembered(there is a bunch of pictures there) or
> she saw it or saw it enough to jog her memory( if that makes sense). we just
> got back from disney world a month ago and by watching her you would never
> think there was a problem. i understand that alot of parents dont realize
> there is a problem but we are looking for it. some of the characters would be
> in the distance and she would call out to them and get it right. she did not
> seem to have any problems during the shows. when one of the shows was over
> there was bubbles above us about 30 feet away and she pointed them out to me.
> i am not saying she sees perfect but seeing things like that should not be a -
> 11.50. the bottom line is i have problems with doctors saying that she is
> severely nearsighted because of the retinoscope but cant explain how she sees
> so well. her doctor even admitted with the antropine drops he has never seen
> something like this before.
> Mike Tyner wrote:
> > > what is your opinion on how she should see with the glasses. please read
> > > the
> > > post from above
> > > I'm sorry - I changed the subject line because I didn't want to entangle you
> > with old newsgroup issues. I believe Otis had wandered in with a discussion
> > of RT's child, not yours. I recommend you give Otis Brown's comments all the
> > consideration you would give any newsgroup troll.
> > > I agree with an earlier doctor who said IF your daughter needed -11.00
> > glasses, she'd want to wear them and her face would light up with a wide
> > grin when she put them on. I don't hear that happening; instead I hear it
> > "takes a while" for her to see well with them, and that's characteristic of
> > glasses that are too strong.
> > > My opinion (FWIW) is that your daughter has some minor anatomical anomaly
> > that distorts her retinoscopy results. In my experience, when retinoscopy is
> > so obviously wrong for the "sphere" value (nearsightedness), it may still be
> > accurate regarding the "cylinder" or astigmatism measurement.
> > Nearsightedness does not usually cause amblyopia unless it is vastly greater
> > in one eye. OTOH, astigmatism _can_ result in amblyopia, in one eye or in
> > both. For this reason, if I were prescribing, I would write only enough
> > nearsighted correction to balance the eyes, and combine it with about half
> > of the measured astigmatism. I would try for a little more accuracy than
> > "axis 090" in each eye.
> > > In my opinion, this would be a reasonable approach to avoiding amblyopia
> > without doing harm. Even so, I'd want to make sure that prescription
> > actually improves her measured acuity, especially at near. If not, I think
> > it would be safe to leave off glasses for another year or two, until better
> > measurements can be made. 20/60 isn't disabling for a 3-year-old.
> > > I realize that other doctors, even a majority, might disagree, but as I
> > said, this is what I'd do if my own child were in a similar situation.
> > > -MT