> *bump*

> On Sep 6, 10:30 pm, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 6:19 pm, Jason Sperry <jasonsperr...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > If a person has ametropia or presbyopia, that person IS visually
> > > impaired, because instead of seeing things how they really are, you
> > > see things blurred or distorted!
> > > You wouldn't like to buy a digital camera that always took pictures
> > > that were out of focus, now, would you?
> > > That's why it's called a refractive ERROR. The more of it you have,
> > > the more blind you are.
> > Thank you Jason for setting things straight with Lena. However I
> > think I am not too off saying that your last sentence is inaccurate.
> > Blindness is absolute, you cannot be "more blind". You are either
> > blind or not. Visual impairment is not blindness and can vary in its
> > degree.
> > Legal blindness is an arbitrary official term, describing an
> > impairment that cannot be corrected with glasses/lenses. I have met
> > quite a few "legally blind" people, and they are not blind, but have
> > very impaired low vision. However, they can see.
> > I am unsure about extremely severe legal blindness, e.g. people with
> > advanced tunnel vision or those who can distinguish between light and
> > darkness but not much more. Perhaps they are blind, perhaps not. But
> > to say that "the more refractive error you have, the more blind you
> > are," is incorrect.
> Oops, my mistake. I meant to say "the more refractive error you have,
> the more you are unable to see," replacing "unable to see" with
> "blind." But that wasn't a good word to use.
> Also, I'm wondering what the strongest possible prescription is. Like,
> if someone were legally blind, how many diopters would their glasses
> be (assuming every legally blind person wears the same amount of
> diopters - that is, the strongest prescription possible)? Could
> someone please explain this to me?- Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text -

> On Sep 7, 7:10 pm, lena102938 <db00q...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Let it worse as time goes on by itself, with glasses
> > Without "progressive's Acceleration
> WTF are you talking about?
> Progressive lenses do not accelerate presbyopia-- age does. sorry
> lena but you are just getting older.
> For someone who claims to be a scientist you sure like to throw out a
> lot of unproven statements. And why are you so angry all the time?

> Let it worse as time goes on by itself, with glasses
> Without "progressive's Acceleration

> Then I typed nonsense into this newsgroup because I got drunk.

> On Sep 6, 11:48 pm, lena102938 <db00q...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 9:41 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 9:31 pm, "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sep 6, 7:14 pm, "Dr. Leukoma" <d...[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > > > > Somebody obviously has a chip on their shoulder for some reason. Care
> > > > > to talk about it, Lena?- > > > > This is the Lena situation as seems so far from bits and pieces if
> > > > info she has provided.
> > > > She has turned 40 and was diagnosed with beginning of presbiopia. She
> > > > resents it! The OD recommended progressive glasses, but NO! She
> > > > believes it will make her more presbiopic by taking away from her any
> > > > ability to accommodate that she still has, and "real beautiful, I mean
> > > > real real" refuse to wear glasses no matter what, so she is in total
> > > > denial, she denies, at 40 you don't need reading glasses, not with +1D
> > > > add, it;s all a big conspiracy, optometrists hate really really
> > > > beautiful women, +1 does not require correction, she will stay young
> > > > and really really forever. So Otis must be right!
> > > > Oh BTW Lena, how did you end up at the optician shop? Did the KGB
> > > > force you there at gun point? Really Lena really, why did you go?
> > > I figured as much. What is a physicist doing here?
> > I am programmer now.
> > It is in my first post here it is not me, my friend
> > "Presbiopia contacts need advice !"
> > (Prisbyopia spell with "bi")
> > I would not be pissed off that much about myself.
> > The only not true in post is
> > that " I needed advise"
> > I new the answer.
> > i need somebody else will read the answer.
> > Somebody ( after two visits to dr) was trying ' to use to"
> > (Following doctor advise) multifocals,
> > which doctor never cheked.
> > Already having double vision, terrible light sencetivity, red eyes
> > He did not ask multifocals with monovision correction
> > she did not tell it (if i knew I would ask to chek. I've got that
> > when I seen ordered boxes in 4 weeks)
> > It is not a cultural difference to be so patient
> > to discomfort, he was born in Indiana
> > Mike answered.
> > Trial pair in the dumpster.
> > Boxes returned in EyeGlassWord
> > When tired - still double vision looking at distance w or w/o
> > correction .
> > Did not read yet authors that you gave me a ref at
> > (Hung and ..)( too busy on job)
> > but found a lot of their papers.
> > Lena
> Well I should have read further on into the thread before I posted my
> earlier posts.
> Lena,
> I appreciate that you seem to be an intelligent women. I can tell you
> that I will not lie to you. You know what presbyopia is and you know
> that everyone experiences it about age 40-45. This is simply biology
> and not a conspiracy. Now you MAY have had a poor eye examination,
> and you may have gotten a poorly-made pair of glasses, but presbyopia
> DOES happen. and it gets worse as time goes on. Sorry.

> On Sep 6, 10:12 pm, lena102938 <db00q...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Sep 6, 8:38 pm, Jason Sperry <jasonsperr...[at]gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Sep 6, 4:24 pm, lena102938 <db00q...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Site of Essilor (optics producer)
> > > > calls ametropia and presbiopia "Visual Impairment"
> > > > http://www.essilor.com/Products/Visi...s/LaVision.htm
> > > Taken from the site:
> > > "In addition, anyone over the age of 45 will inevitably experience
> > > presbyopia, a natural age-related process affecting the crystalline
> > > lens, regardless of whether they have always had normal vision or have
> > > suffered from myopia, hyperopia or astigmatism. Everyone is or will be
> > > affected."
> > > Hmmm...it seems like the whole "visual impairment" thing that Essilor
> > > wrote about is the only thing she got right. Because the paragraph
> > > above is COMPLETE BOGUS. It's definitely propaganda, but fortunately
> > > only idiots would believe in it.
> > > Jason
> > Well ?
> > And that "Everyone is or will be
> > affected." or somewhere else at site is in Bold Blue Big font> From their pdf file presentation about business development do not
> > have ref)
> > Potential sales volume grows are driven by:
> > 1. the increase in population that wears glasses
> > 2. and by technological change including
> > Plastic lenses, progressives etc.
> > Main Quote:
> > "User try them buy them and don't give them up"
> > They are not that stupid to make propaganda for idiots, too expencive
> > propaganda is for average person
> > Lena
> Lena. Here you go again acting like some radical socialist airhead.
> Of course companies try to make a profit. That's how they pay their
> employee's.

> Its how they grow bigger and need to hire additional
> employees which overall is a good thing for society!