reading glasses

#38 10-20-2007, 03:50 PM

On Oct 20, 6:22 am, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
- quote -

> I think the ASSUMPTION of the original poster was that a
> -1 diopter lens was PRESCRIBED EXCLUSIVELY FOR NEAR.
> But since no one aske them WHY they were putting the minus
> on ONLY FOR READING -- we will never know why.
> I think it was just simple ignorance -- and lack of
> instruction to ONLY use the minus lens for distance
> (when requred) and avoided at all other times.

Wow. Chiding others for unfounded assumptions, yet LEAPING to one
yourself.

You never cease to amaze, Otis.

Similarly, you never cease being a pathological liar and/or an
absolute fucking idiot, but ... I digress....

#37 10-20-2007, 01:22 PM

I think the ASSUMPTION of the original poster was that a
-1 diopter lens was PRESCRIBED EXCLUSIVELY FOR NEAR.

But since no one aske them WHY they were putting the minus
on ONLY FOR READING -- we will never know why.

I think it was just simple ignorance -- and lack of
instruction to ONLY use the minus lens for distance
(when requred) and avoided at all other times.

Otis

On Oct 20, 12:19 am, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
- quote -

> In article <47YOi.126$I44...[at]newsfe12.lga> , "KlausK" <di...[at]noone.com> wrote:
> > "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
> > > Welcome to the "Reading Comprehension Challenged Club"!
> > Please read the original post again. The Q was why people with minus
> > prescriptions put on reading glasses (plus prescriptions) to read on the
> > train.
> Many of us have read the original post again. What did you *observe*
> about these anonymous strangers that you have never seen, that leads you
> to believe that they were wearing plus lenses, in contradiction to the
> original poster?

#36 10-20-2007, 04:19 AM

In article <47YOi.126$I44.43[at]newsfe12.lga> , "KlausK" <dinga[at]noone.comwrote:

- quote -

> "Ms.Brainy" <mikabrainy[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
> > Welcome to the "Reading Comprehension Challenged Club"!

> Please read the original post again. The Q was why people with minus
> prescriptions put on reading glasses (plus prescriptions) to read on the
> train.

Many of us have read the original post again. What did you *observe*
about these anonymous strangers that you have never seen, that leads you
to believe that they were wearing plus lenses, in contradiction to the
original poster?

#35 10-20-2007, 04:11 AM

It's nice to have you back, Lena. For a while there we were running
low on worthless answers, incorrect answers, and harmful answers.

Actually, we weren't, but ... I couldn't come up with anything nice to
say.

Care to back up any of your cynical, agenda-driven assertions yet, or
is this just a little Soviet-style intellectual masturbation ... Otis-
style?

Thanks. Guess I'll get the standard post out and ready again.

#34 10-20-2007, 03:32 AM

On Oct 19, 10:30 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

> On Oct 19, 8:27 pm, lena102938 <db00q...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 10:21 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > > > Too bad they were not given instructions to avoid the
> > > > minus -- except for distant objects. With a
> > > > minld (-1 diopter), there is no need for it except for
> > > > distant vision.
> > > > You understand this situation. Most people are
> > > > ignorant of it. Very few ODs will engage the person
> > > > in ANY reasonable discussion of this issue.
> > > As always, I'd be interested to know your source for this information.
> > > As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I have spoken with clinical instructors
> > > at SEVERAL major optometric schools and have been told that THEY TEACH
> > > STUDENTS to advice simple low myopes to wear their glasses only when
> > > needed (distance vision).
> > Really ?
> uh, yes.

uh, well.

#33 10-20-2007, 03:30 AM

On Oct 19, 8:27 pm, lena102938 <db00q...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

> On Oct 19, 10:21 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > > Too bad they were not given instructions to avoid the
> > > minus -- except for distant objects. With a
> > > minld (-1 diopter), there is no need for it except for
> > > distant vision.
> > > You understand this situation. Most people are
> > > ignorant of it. Very few ODs will engage the person
> > > in ANY reasonable discussion of this issue.
> > As always, I'd be interested to know your source for this information.
> > As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I have spoken with clinical instructors
> > at SEVERAL major optometric schools and have been told that THEY TEACH
> > STUDENTS to advice simple low myopes to wear their glasses only when
> > needed (distance vision).
> Really ?

uh, yes.

#32 10-20-2007, 03:27 AM

On Oct 19, 10:21 pm, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:
- quote -

> On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:
> > Too bad they were not given instructions to avoid the
> > minus -- except for distant objects. With a
> > minld (-1 diopter), there is no need for it except for
> > distant vision.
> > You understand this situation. Most people are
> > ignorant of it. Very few ODs will engage the person
> > in ANY reasonable discussion of this issue.
> As always, I'd be interested to know your source for this information.
> As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I have spoken with clinical instructors
> at SEVERAL major optometric schools and have been told that THEY TEACH
> STUDENTS to advice simple low myopes to wear their glasses only when
> needed (distance vision).
Really ?

#31 10-20-2007, 03:21 AM

On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...[at]pa.net" <otisbr...[at]pa.net> wrote:

- quote -

> Too bad they were not given instructions to avoid the
> minus -- except for distant objects. With a
> minld (-1 diopter), there is no need for it except for
> distant vision.
> You understand this situation. Most people are
> ignorant of it. Very few ODs will engage the person
> in ANY reasonable discussion of this issue.

As always, I'd be interested to know your source for this information.

As I have told you REPEATEDLY, I have spoken with clinical instructors
at SEVERAL major optometric schools and have been told that THEY TEACH
STUDENTS to advice simple low myopes to wear their glasses only when
needed (distance vision).

Is it possible that some patient somewhere did NOT get this
information? Of course. But YOUR perception of "standard of care" is
contrived, not informed.

So ... since your hypothesis (like most of them) is diametrically at
odds with FACT, then why DO you continue to spout it? Does it simply
bolster a theory that you're trying to push ... aggressively ... and
incessantly?

Thanks.

ps: if you ever tire of you being wrong and me being right, feel free
to spend your time trolling DIFFERENT newsgroups ;-)

#30 10-20-2007, 02:37 AM

Dear Phillippa,

Subject: Knowing the physics of a minus lens.

Re: When, where and how to use it.

Yes I have seen the same thing. But these people were
give no instructions on when and HOW to use it.

They did not like to be "seen" wearing glasses, and
had no idea of the reason WHY they were given glasses.

So there "compromise" was to only use the minus lens
FOR READING.

Too bad they were not given instructions to avoid the
minus -- except for distant objects. With a
minld (-1 diopter), there is no need for it except for
distant vision.

You understand this situation. Most people are
ignorant of it. Very few ODs will engage the person
in ANY reasonable discussion of this issue.

Best,

Otis

On Oct 11, 4:48 pm, "Philippa via MedKB.com" <u36039[at]uwe> wrote:
- quote -

> I know what a minus prescription looks like as I have one myself. But when it
> was very mild (around -1) I wouldn't have put it on to read. I presumed
> (maybe naively) that few mildly nearsighted people need to wear glasses to
> read, I'd just hold the book closer. Just seemed alot of trouble to read
> something that could just be brought closer and then to take them off had me
> completely confused.
> --
> Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1

#29 10-20-2007, 02:30 AM

In article <1192078962.091849.238390[at]k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com> ,
"Ms.Brainy" <mikabrainy[at]gmail.com> wrote:

- quote -

> On Oct 10, 2:09 pm, Zetsu <absolutelyinvinci...[at]hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I find it funny how you guys tend to argue over so little things.

Have you tried a "training" bra? That sometimes helps with the little
things.

Similar Threads
Thread	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Reading glasses Iain: Who do the frames of basic distance glasses cost so much when they are just the same as those of reading glasses (or are they)? Surely it is not...	Vision	8	09-04-2007 12:41 AM
OTC Reading Glasses Father Mike: Well, got my new progressives. Small improvement since my eyes didn't change much in four years. My eyes seem to be matched a little better. My...	Vision	11	07-19-2007 04:25 PM
reading glasses cdavis@directflatscreen.tv: If I have had IOL's in each eye and supposedly they are almost perfect -.25 & +.25 then why are my reading glasses +1.75 and +3.25?	Vision	24	03-27-2007 07:24 AM
+1.0 Reading Glasses nospam: I just started needed some help from reading glasses (new toric lenses for the first time, etc. long story) and the doctor suggested I get a pair...	Vision	18	02-22-2004 01:13 PM
+1.0 Reading Glasses nospam: I just started needed some help from reading glasses (new toric lenses for the first time, etc. long story) and the doctor suggested I get a pair...	Main Category	18	02-22-2004 01:13 PM

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode