On Jan 24, 2:24 pm, "Mike Tyner" <mty...[at]mindspring.com> wrote:

- quote -

Whoops!!

There's that word again.

Now, Mike ... we've been through this before.

Otis's "mind" is made up. PLEASE don't confuse him with facts.

TYVM,
Neil

<otisbrown[at]embarqmail.com> wrote

3. You can repeat the measurement -- and TRUST
the measurement you make -- if you are competent.

_You_ can get repeatable measurements because you have no accommodation,
therefore no instrument myopia and no reflex accommodation when you close
one eye and test the other.

For a 20-year-old, the "facts" are different.

-MT

On Jan 24, 10:44 am, Dan Abel <da...[at]sonic.net> wrote:
- quote -

I think that's incredibly conservative, but ... we'll go with it for
now. He'll prove me right soon enough.

- quote -

Ya' know, Dan? You're okay :-)

In article
<88cc2a6e-009a-4795-957b-5b67f903a1ca[at]e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com> ,
otisbrown[at]embarqmail.com wrote:

- quote -


Nobody would attack that statement, they would attack your credibility.
This is called "experience". You seldom pay any attention to the
subject. You seldom pay any attention to what you are replying to.
It's just an excuse to repeat your dreck. Anything you post that isn't
dreck, is a leadin to the dreck. This is true about 95% of the time.
Thus, whatever you post can just assumed to be dreck, without even
reading it.

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

I thought it went like this:

'Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay
no attention to the plank in your own eye?'

otisbrown[at]embarqmail.com wrote in news:88cc2a6e-009a-4795-957b-
5b67f903a1ca[at]e25g2000prg.googlegroups.com:

- quote -

Nothing too new about it. The FDA application was from 1994, and its
classified as substantially equivalent, which means that something much
like it existed in 1976


--
Scott
Reverse name to reply

On Jan 24, 8:59 am, Neil Brooks <neil0...[at]yahoo.com> wrote:

- quote -

Put another way:

And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but
considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?

On Jan 24, 8:44 am, Zetsu <Kyazek...[at]googlemail.com> wrote:
- quote -

It's called putting it on the record.

Every time he puts forth something as accepted fact, I'm going to make
sure that anybody looking at the thread knows that it's anything but;
actually, disproved.

Silly? Crazy?

I suggest you find a mirror.

On Jan 24, 10:38 am, otisbr...[at]embarqmail.com wrote:

- quote -

Sure it can, but what is to discuss? A refracting instrument? How it
works? How much it costs?

Here is the mission statement from the InFocus website:
==============================================
WHY ARE WE HERE?
As many as 900 million children and adults in the world today are
visually impaired due to refractive errors that could be corrected by
prescription eye glasses. The World Health Organization estimates that
75% of the world's blindness could be prevented or treated. Toward
that goal, InFOCUS helps large, medically isolated populations acquire
basic vision services and the capacity to link patients to
professional care.
===============================================

It would appear that the InFOCUS organization agrees with the majority
opinion about uncorrected REFRACTIVE ERRORS and the need to prescribe
corrective lenses for them.

DrG

Neil stop being silly. You are arguing and arguing for like an
eternity. Step outside from the mess and see how crazy you all look to
an outsider!