 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / April 2005Neat Snellen Eye Chart
Dear Friends, It is alway good to have an idea of what you read at 3 meters or 6 meters on a Snellen. http://www.smbs.buffalo.edu/oph/ped/IVAC/IVAC.html The above Snellen can be easily used to verify your vision. Enjoy, Otis Thanks, was helpful > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Otis ...and, if you memorize it, you will always have 20/20 vision. DrG Dear Dr(L)G, DrG> ...and, if you memorize it, you will always have 20/20 vision. ______________________ If you actually READ, or did any checking at all -- you would have discovered that this is a RANDOM Snellen. Thus it is IMPOSSIBLE to "memorize" it. But, or course you trot out your stock phrase -- regardless of what the reality is with this chart. In fact I obtained this chart from "Jon" who now reads it at 20/20 -- and had not memorized it -- despite your preferred belief. Jeeze! Best, Otis Engineer > Dear Dr(L)G, > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Otis > Engineer So much for levity. What's the matter, Otis? Can't you take a joke? DrG > In fact I obtained this chart from > "Jon" who now reads it at 20/20 -- and > had not memorized it -- despite > your preferred belief. One of your made up subjects Otis? If Jon is so computer savy, why don't you invite him to this newsgroup. Oh, protecting something that doesn't exist. Jeeze! Allen Dear Allen, Since you a "blotto" following the subject, i.e., you "warned" Stacy about my posts! Personally, I consider true-prevention to be difficult, requiring considerable motivation in the person himself. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE do I believe that you can "reduce" this analysis to a "quick-fix" to the mass of the public walking in "off the street". I define that as the difference between an appreciation of what the "fact" tell us about the dynamic behavior of the natural eye -- and what ODs do in their office. With candor, William stated that he entered OD school with about -1 D. And he graduated with about -1.5 diopters. I have no problem with that -- and I know that William his honest about the issue. He has no interest in prevention, and therefore no interest in prevention for others. Again, I accept this as an "optometric" point-of-view. Lastly I do not "joke" about true-prevention. I think that "Mike" and "Jon" (15 and 14 years old) had a right to understand Stacy's point-of-view, and take it seriously. Further, they wished to make certain they were reading the "chart" correctly, and asked their parents (who had 20/20) to verify their reading. It is obvious that true-prevention is difficult. "Mike" wanted to be a pilot (at -2.75 diopters) He had almost "given up". After following Jon's successful return to 20/20, he is now working "all out" with the plus. Currently he is at 20/30, and sees 20/20 occasionaly. Unlike William -- who has no interest in protecting his clear vision -- Mike does. And that makes all the difference. Best, Otis > William >his honest about the issue. He has no interest in prevention, >and therefore no interest in prevention for others. >Again, I accept this as an "optometric" point-of-view. > That is a misrepresentation of my view. I always have interest in prevention, especially prevention of blindness, which is my main charge, legally and professionally. I'm also interested in prevention of myopia, as an optometrist and a myope, and have been for years. That's one reason I'm responding to your posts. I've just found, as you have, that however sensible, even simple, it seems to be to do it, the reality of it is that success is very limited indeed, as have all respected researchers. >Unlike William -- who has no interest in protecting >his clear vision -- Mike does. > >And that makes all the difference. > That's a pretty stupid statement on its face, and now you're repeating yourself. If you ever had any credibility, you've lost it there... w.stacy, o.d. >> William >>his honest about the issue. He has no interest in prevention, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >That is a misrepresentation of my view. [Think "Casablanca" here] I am shocked . . . SHOCKED, I say, to hear that BestOtisEngineer might have misrepresented somebody's view. >I always have interest in >prevention, especially prevention of blindness, which is my main charge, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >That's a pretty stupid statement on its face, and now you're repeating >yourself. William Stacy: meet BestOtisEngineer. >If you ever had any credibility, you've lost it there... Not an issue. Dear William, >Unlike William -- who has no interest in protecting >his clear vision -- Mike does. >And that makes all the difference. That's a pretty stupid statement on its face, and now you're repeating yourself. If you ever had any credibility, you've lost it there... w.stacy, o.d. I do not think you understood the statement, William. What I said was that NOTHING is affected if you are slightly nearsighed. Or is there. Your life is not impacted. You can see clearly through the minus lens. And in fact, you state that being slightly nearsighed at age 50 is advantageous -- and it is -- because of your presbyopia. However, the situation with "Mike" and "Jon" is profoundly different. They are well-award of the -1/2 diopter "down" rate established in these bi-focal studies, and did now wish to join that "down" march into myopia. Further, in going to college, they know the "down" rate is -1/3 diopter per year (-1.6 dioptersin four years -- worst case) Therefore they know that (after they cleared to 20/20) that they must continue to monitor their 20/20 line, and we it starts coming "down" again to 20/25, and 20/30, they must simply "re-start" a process that they know has been successful for them. Since this is based on their own understanding of scientific fact, and under their own control, I do not see how you could become involved -- at all. And if so, how? If it were your own children, or grand children -- the that would be different -- of couse. I raised this issue with Alex Eulenberg -- who provided long arguments about this issue. Now, when push comes to shove -- how is he going to deal with his own child. We all make our own choices. Best, Otis > We all make our own choices. Yes. Some choose to ignore evidence and believe fallacies. -MT > It is obvious that true-prevention is difficult. > "Mike" wanted to be a pilot (at -2.75 diopters) > He had almost "given up". Ummm, going with generalities again Otis. I am a pilot with -4.25. Wether you like to hear it or not, glasses or contacts do fine for me. Don't start with the regulations Otis, we have visited that before and you have been wrong in the past. Don't believe me, check google. Sounds like Mike should not worry about vision, and just get behind the yoke. Oh yeah, maybe Mike is a made up character / subject???? Allen I've also kind of wondered about his obsession with desperate pilots. As an optometrist in the USAF during Viet Nam, stationed at a pilot training base (lubbock, tx) I often would waiver a student who'd gone myopic. I always thought the AF used the uncorrected 20/20 just to cut down on the applicant pool. I also thought that they let way too many hyperopes in (who later in life couldn't see any instruments if their glasses got knocked off, unlike the myopes)... w.stacy, o.d. (when I'm flying to Hawaii, give me an old myopic captain over an old hyperope, any day, because at least they can see their altitude...) >>It is obvious that true-prevention is difficult. >>"Mike" wanted to be a pilot (at -2.75 diopters) [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Allen > I've also kind of wondered about his obsession with desperate pilots. > As an optometrist in the USAF during Viet Nam, stationed at a pilot [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > hyperopes in (who later in life couldn't see any instruments if their > glasses got knocked off, unlike the myopes)... Yep, that's the "gubment way". bass ackwards...... Like you said, if I encountered severe turbulence and wacked my head on the bulkhead, and got my glasses knocked off, even with my -4.25 eye (my other is -1.75) I still could see the instruments to land the plane under instrument rules... Landing may not be the most graceful, but I could land the plane. Allen (who has no depth perception to boot!) > I've also kind of wondered about his obsession with desperate pilots. > As an optometrist in the USAF during Viet Nam, stationed at a pilot > training base (lubbock, tx) I often would waiver a student who'd gone > myopic. I always thought the AF used the uncorrected 20/20 just to cut > down on the applicant pool. You're probably right. As a former personnel/HR puke, I noticed that many jobs "requiring" a BS didn't even need a HS grad if the guy's heart and mind were in the right place. > I also thought that they let way too many > hyperopes in (who later in life couldn't see any instruments if their [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > (when I'm flying to Hawaii, give me an old myopic captain over an old > hyperope, any day, because at least they can see their altitude...) Sounds reasonable to me. As a hyperope, I've learned to envy myopes who can at least read without glasses.  SignatureCh rs, B v ======================================= My f ck ng k yb rd h s l st ts v w ls. > Dear Friends, > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Enjoy, Very nice, Otis, thank you. SignatureCh rs, B v ======================================= My f ck ng k yb rd h s l st ts v w ls.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.