In article <1146655288.263239.50980[at]j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ,
"Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:


- quote -


That's funny. I don't have one.

--
Dan Abel
dabel[at]sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Rev Jessie James wrote:
- quote -

It is based on genetics...of homo sapiens. The laws of physics and
physiological optics are immutable.

Presbyopia i-n-v-a-r-i-a-b-l-y occurs in one's fourth decade. At this
time, the only variables would be the individual's refractive error.
If they are nearsighted in the right amount, they can read without
reading glasses, but they cannot see far. The other variable is pupil
size. Very small pinpoint pupils bypass the optics of the eye to a
great extent, and create a large depth of focus. This is relatively
uncommon, though, and those who want to see near and far clearly will
need a multifocal lens.

DrG

In article <zDW5g.66968$F_3.63550[at]newssvr29.news.prodigy.net> ,
"Rev Jessie James" <Jessie[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -


Yup, a gross generalization. That doesn't mean it isn't true, though.
There are certainly exceptions.

--
Dan Abel
dabel[at]sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Well over 40 here.. Can still focus fine at 6" or ( 5280 ft. thanks to lasik ). I think that it it is a gross generalization that everyone over 40 has accommodation problems and needs bifocals..

I know several people that didn't need bifocals or reading glasses their 70s. My mom didn't need reading glasses until she was close to 80. BTW she is still driving at 90!

Hopefully the age at one becomes farsighted is based on genetics!

"Robert Kopp" <koppr[at]hevanet.com> wrote in message newsan.2006.04.27.07.21.08.266000[at]hevanet.com...
On Thu, 27 Apr 2006 01:12:40 +0000, Salmon Egg wrote:

- quote -

list, if they are concerned about medical eye problems, are probably over
40. I am.

--
Robert T. Kopp
http://analytic.tripod.com/

LarryDoc <larrybic[at]yahoo.remove.com> wrote in news:larrybic-
521E90.20520528042006[at]news.verizon.net:

- quote -

Thanks for clearing this up. Looks like I was asking the right questions.

I have no trouble paying a fair price, and I see the sillyness and
hypocricy involved in gladly paying $150 for a fancy pair of sneakers, and
then moaning about the cost of prescription eyewear.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

In article <larrybic-521E90.20520528042006[at]news.verizon.net> ,
LarryDoc <larrybic[at]yahoo.remove.com> wrote:

- quote -

Thanks. This was very informative.


- quote -


And sometimes you don't.

I have really mixed feelings. Vision is probably the #1 sense for
humans, making it really important. I have no problem paying a bunch of
money. Having said that, I buy my glasses off the shelf at Costco, for
US$18.99 for three pairs.

We paid a lot of money for my wife's progressives. That's what she
likes and wants. Over the three years that she has had them, the cost
is negligible. She shows no signs of wanting new ones, so the cost per
day will keep dropping.

--
Dan Abel
dabel[at]sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

In article <XcK4g.1018$g01.398[at]trnddc01> ,
"Dick Adams" <bad.addr[at]nonexist.com> wrote:

- quote -

The correct acronym here is "IMNSHO".

:-)



- quote -

I couldn't even manage simple bifocals, although I'm convinced that part
of the problem was that they were 1/2" thick.


- quote -


It is a prime responsibility of professional folks to define terms and
concepts (IMNSHO). As a former professional, these acronyms and jargon
are wonderful ways to communicate between professionals.


- quote -


Thanks. Things are going well now as far as vision issues, and seem
stable.

--
Dan Abel
dabel[at]sonic.net
Petaluma, California, USA

Orki wrote:

- quote -

I got the cheapest possible lenses from my eye doc and it was $120 for
single vision, in my frames, with no coatings of any kind. The glare
is unbelievable and they appear cheaply made because there are
"splinters" on the rimless edges. I really don't like wearing them.

I ordered from optical4less.com and got new frames with UV,AR,and
scratch coat for around $40. The optics are great and the frames are
nice. There's really no comparison. These glasses would be $300+
locally.

There is risk in it because you don't really know how they are going to
look from pic online, but I could buy almost 10 pairs for the price I'd
pay locally. I feel a little guilty, because I'm not sure if the exams
are priced low in the expectation of a glasses purchase? The savings
is just too much to pass up though.

FWIW, I bought from Zenni once and the frames were pretty cheap. O4L is
much better. Zenni delivered quickly though.

--

Let's face it, we're being held to the standards created by Walmart.

DrG

Yeh, sure, but what about Costco?

DrG