> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Otis's pal wrote:
> > > Truck drivers never develop myopia
> > > Uncle Otie: all you've accomplished here is to prove that there are
> > *other* morons besides yourself who understand neither logic nor
> > reason, and are unable to differentiate between correlation and
> > causation. In your case, I imagine these challenges extend to tying
> > one's own shoelaces ... but I digress.
> > > Isn't it just as likely--if not more so--that myopics don't become
> > truck drivers??
> Otis??

> Otis's pal wrote:
> > Truck drivers never develop myopia
> Uncle Otie: all you've accomplished here is to prove that there are
> *other* morons besides yourself who understand neither logic nor
> reason, and are unable to differentiate between correlation and
> causation. In your case, I imagine these challenges extend to tying
> one's own shoelaces ... but I digress.
> Isn't it just as likely--if not more so--that myopics don't become
> truck drivers??

> > HEY, OTIS: *WHAP!*
> > What's the game with the pig and the stick and the candy, a pinata or
> something? That sounds like a betty game. Dunno what we'd get if we win! :-)

> otisbrown[at]pa.net wrote:
> > Dear Simon,
> > > Subject: The proven dynamic behavior
> > of all fundamental eyes.
> No. That was not my question at all. Would you like to take your time,
> and answer my question again as to why I, as a Hyperope, who did lots of
> close work growing up am not now Myopic?
> In terms you understand...
> 1) I am a hyperope.
> 2) I did a lot of close up work when I was younger and now.
> 3) Why has my "dynamic eye" not adjusted to being myopic?

> 4) I did not wear any form of glasses until 9 months ago, and I have not
> worn them for the past 3 months.
> 5) I am 28.
> > > Yes, Simon -- you do not
> > have any interest in scientific
> > proof.
> Yes, I do. Please provide me an explanation to the above.
> > You made that
> > scientific fact absolutely clear.
> No. That's your judgement.
> > But second-opnion ODs like
> > Steve Leung have that type
> > of interest and support
> > their own children in
> > PREVENTION they
> > way that this "preventive"
> > engineer did with HIS
> > children -- based on the
> > scientific facts concerning
> > the behavior of all natural
> > primate eyes.
> Prevention? of myopia I presume. Your "speciality"
> Again, this has nothing to do with why my "dynamic eye" is not myopic
> after many many years of close up work.
> Please explain you fraud.
> Thanks
> Simon

> Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any
> myopia by giving them the plus lens. An ounce of prevention(plus lens)
> is worth a pound of "cure"(glasses, contacts, lasik, etc) But on the
> bright side, the guy who became -1 is not at a disadvantage if he does
> alot of work because what this will mean is a reduced dependancy on
> reading glasses and probably wont need any glasses for intermediate
> such as using the computer or talking to someone at arm's length or
> waking up to clearly see the alarm clock. Bate's book(and supporters)
> even says keep a little myopia for it will help you immensely in your
> 2nd half of your life and allow you to see clear from near and
> intermediate without much compromise on distance vision.
> We live in a near work society so its only natural our eyes get myopic
> to adapt to the near work. Using the minus lens tricks the eye into
> thinking it needs to get more myopic for near work. If you must wear
> glasses, keep them OFF for near work or use bifocals/progressives!
> My brother has the same story. He never got worse than -2 and is now
> -1.25 to this day because he rejected the minus lens. He does tons of
> near work so it was only natural his eyes get myopic in response to his
> environment. As long as he takes breaks and doesnt read very close,
> such at the 6" point, his eyes shouldnt get any worse.
> My sister on the other hand is a full time contact wearer and does lots
> of near work. As a response, her eyes have gotten worse. We might go to
> the optometrist tomorrow to get her stronger contacts. She is not
> interested in 2nd opinion nor vision improvement. She likes the instant
> gratification of very clear 20/20 vision that her contacts provide and
> she tolerates contacts fine. She doesnt care about her eyes as long as
> she corrects to 20/20 and can deal with contacts fine. She will
> probably get lasik or whatever surgury is out 10, 15 or 20 years from
> now when she can no longer tolerate contacts. She may want to consider
> monovision or slightly undercorrecting her eyes so they are focused at
> near to avoid reading glasses and further axial myopia.
> I am not getting any surgury any time soon, if ever. I do want to get
> orthoK which will reduce my myopia. I dont know if orthoK can eliminate
> all my myopia nor do I care to be plano because of all the near work I
> do. I will be happy to be in the -1.25 to -2 range with as little
> astigmastim as possible. This will have the greatest effect of nearly
> eliminating my dependence on glasses.

> Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any
> myopia by giving them the plus lens. An ounce of prevention(plus lens)
> is worth a pound of "cure"(glasses, contacts, lasik, etc) But on the
> bright side, the guy who became -1 is not at a disadvantage if he does
> alot of work because what this will mean is a reduced dependancy on
> reading glasses and probably wont need any glasses for intermediate
> such as using the computer or talking to someone at arm's length or
> waking up to clearly see the alarm clock. Bate's book(and supporters)
> even says keep a little myopia for it will help you immensely in your
> 2nd half of your life and allow you to see clear from near and
> intermediate without much compromise on distance vision.
> We live in a near work society so its only natural our eyes get myopic
> to adapt to the near work. Using the minus lens tricks the eye into
> thinking it needs to get more myopic for near work. If you must wear
> glasses, keep them OFF for near work or use bifocals/progressives!
> My brother has the same story. He never got worse than -2 and is now
> -1.25 to this day because he rejected the minus lens. He does tons of
> near work so it was only natural his eyes get myopic in response to his
> environment. As long as he takes breaks and doesnt read very close,
> such at the 6" point, his eyes shouldnt get any worse.
> My sister on the other hand is a full time contact wearer and does lots
> of near work. As a response, her eyes have gotten worse. We might go to
> the optometrist tomorrow to get her stronger contacts. She is not
> interested in 2nd opinion nor vision improvement. She likes the instant
> gratification of very clear 20/20 vision that her contacts provide and
> she tolerates contacts fine. She doesnt care about her eyes as long as
> she corrects to 20/20 and can deal with contacts fine. She will
> probably get lasik or whatever surgury is out 10, 15 or 20 years from
> now when she can no longer tolerate contacts. She may want to consider
> monovision or slightly undercorrecting her eyes so they are focused at
> near to avoid reading glasses and further axial myopia.
> I am not getting any surgury any time soon, if ever. I do want to get
> orthoK which will reduce my myopia. I dont know if orthoK can eliminate
> all my myopia nor do I care to be plano because of all the near work I
> do. I will be happy to be in the -1.25 to -2 range with as little
> astigmastim as possible. This will have the greatest effect of nearly
> eliminating my dependence on glasses.

> <otisbrown[at]pa.net> wrote
> > Yes, Simon -- you do not
> > have any interest in scientific
> > proof.
> Sure we do.
> We'd like a scientific reason why it doesn't happen in humans.
> We'd like a scientific reason why hyperopes don't get nearsighted.
> We'd like a scientific reason why myopes who wear glasses get no more
> nearsighted than myopes who don't.

> Simon Dean wrote:
> > Neil Brooks wrote:
> > > > Simon Dean wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > You see, shit for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep
> > > > asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud.
> > > > > > > DING! DING! DING! WINNER! WE HAVE A WINNER!
> > > > > Simon figured it out in all of about three posts. It often takes
> > > people four or five, but the conclusion is ALWAYS the same.
> > > > > Thanks for playing....
> > > > > Oh, you give me too little credit Neil. I knew what Otis was like a year
> > ago, two years ago... he keeps reiterating the same rubbish, and evading
> > straight questions.
> > > When you ask "Why is A?" He'll respond "Subject: D proves F in frozen
> > ice" or something...
> > > Sometimes I just like playing the game.
> Apologies, Simon. I didn't mean to denigrate you. Rather, I used you
> to further denigrate Otis. A fine game, indeed--roughly analogous to
> pin the tail on the moron.
> Cheers,
> Neil
> HEY, OTIS: *WHAP!*

> Neil Brooks wrote:
> > Simon Dean wrote:
> > > > > You see, shit for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep
> > > asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud.
> > > > DING! DING! DING! WINNER! WE HAVE A WINNER!
> > > Simon figured it out in all of about three posts. It often takes
> > people four or five, but the conclusion is ALWAYS the same.
> > > Thanks for playing....
> > Oh, you give me too little credit Neil. I knew what Otis was like a year
> ago, two years ago... he keeps reiterating the same rubbish, and evading
> straight questions.
> When you ask "Why is A?" He'll respond "Subject: D proves F in frozen
> ice" or something...
> Sometimes I just like playing the game.

> That's all well and good, except that I did not wear glasses while my
> "nose was in the book" during junior high, high school and college.
> (When my "refractive state" should have been "moving down" at -1/2
> diopter per year) And my work in software engineering has dictated
> close work for 20 years since then. About 5 years ago, I couldn't see
> well enough to do close work anymore and began to wear glasses. And lo
> and behold, I had a "positive refractive state", not "stair-case
> myopia".
> Contradicts your theory.