 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / March 2006An engineer helps his kids avoid entry into myopia.
Dear Ace, Subject: An engineer helps his children avoid entry in to nearsightedness. Re: Here are some of the details. Re: The primate eye behaves as expected. Re: It seems the parents must FIRST figure out that there children MUST begin wearing the plus at "zero" diopters -- or else accept the consequences of NOT wearing the plus. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Myopia Prevention: Theory and Practic By Denis Alarie, P. Eng. To: Mr. Howard C. Howland W201 Seeley G Mudd Hall Cornell University Ithaca NY 14853 USA Dear Sir: About your ongoing research on the development of the eye. It was with a great deal of interest that I read an article in Discover magazine in the October 1995 Issue concerning your ongoing work on the development of the eye and its relation to bio feedback. I come from a family of 7 where both the parents are with normal vision and where all 5 of the children were nearsigthed and read a lot. I graduated from Queen's University in 1977 with a first class degree in Civil engineering and also graduated with courses in Genetics. This interestingly enough, gave me a background in evolution, genetics, mechanics and physics. I had believed since I was about 15 that their was a causal link between eye development and Myopia and indeed was immensely interested when I read an article supporting that position. At first (around 1972) I had hopes that by carefully managing the use of my eyes I would be able to reverse the myopia about (- 1 dioptre ). This I theorized would be done by using reading glasses to simulate an at rest condition. I experimented with various lenses used while reading and studying ranging from +1.5 dioptre to + 2.5 dioptre, all the while thinking of and studying the structure of the eye to see if I could gain a better understanding of the process. Although my eyes never improved they did not get any worse from a refractory point of view. It was relatively easy to experiment since my eyes did not have any astigmatism. I could therefore purchase glasses at the drug store for reading. I also talked my eye doctor into prescribing glasses at -0.75 dioptre that I would wear while attending classes. This did not do anything even though I played around with this concept for years. One thing that it did do was make me more aware of the minor changes which seemed to occur with my eyes due to atmospheric pressure, influence of alcohol and marijuana use, reading, driving, smoking. After I graduated 1977, I married in 1978 and had a family. My wife was a graduate nurse at University of Toronto and was mildly myopic with -0.50 in the right eye and -0.75 in the left eye. She did not wear her glasses which probably helped to prevent her vision from changing further. We have two daughters aged 15 and 11 both of whom have eyes that are almost perfect as far as spherical corrections are concerned they are both at 0 dioptre +/- 0.25. From the time that they were young I have encouraged good eye habits in both of them, ie don't sit too close to the TV, Head up when they walk Etc. When we moved to Timmins in 1987 we went to see an eye doctor by the name of Al MacIvor. He was talked into prescribing reading glasses for both of the kids. My reasoning was that since my eyes had stabilized at about -1.00 to -1.25 dioptre that reading glasses of +1.25 dioptre would probably be about the right level for them. Al said that both of the girls had very little reserve in their eyes and would both be myopic by the time they were 15. He looked at me with a bit of a glazed look in his eyes when I started talking to him about my ideas and probably thought I was talking about pyramid glasses etc. I insisted that the prescription not contain any cylindrical corrections. This now 1995 and the girls are fine. Their eyes basically have not changed in 8 years. They both are avid readers and computer users and they both wear their reading glasses. In a further elaboration to the above I have noticed that in the workplace where I work there is a very high incidence of occupational myopia in office workers. Truck drivers never develop myopia. Similar to your observations about the pilots who have good vision prior to their studies and poor vision after. I am not looking for anything from this. Just trying to help where I can and enjoying the chance to finally be able to transmit my information to someone who takes it seriously and has the professional credentials and interest in pursuing it further . Sincerely Yours Denis Alarie, P. Eng. (Address supressed to protect him from a Neil Brooks attack.) > Dear Ace, > [quoted text clipped - 108 lines] > (Address supressed to protect > him from a Neil Brooks attack.) http://www.i-see.org/archive/alarie Denis Alarie , P. Eng. 229 Rosemary Crescent Timmins Ontario Canada, P4P-7C2 djalarie@vianet.on.ca "The following letter was sent to me by Denis Alarie, from Ontario. He originally sent it to Howard Howland, a vision researcher at Cornell who has done work on chicks, inducing myopia by applying minus lenses to their eyes." Hrm. Cluck cluck cluck Dear Simon, Very nice of you to point that out. Now Neil can post "Denis" warnings on sci.med.vision, and send threatening emails to Denis about how he was wrong, wrong, wrong, to help his kids avoid entry into nearsighedness. Too bad that Ace's parents did not have that insight into protecting his distant vision -- as the second-opinion. I do not think that Ace would be saying, what you say. But, that is the nature of the preventive second opinion, isn't it? Best, Otis The degree to which you are an idiot is utterly astounding, Cletis (I like that!). Uncle Otie: What ELSE did your parents force you to do as a child that has so horribly scarred you ... and have you sought some sort of psychological therapy in order to come to some resolution with it? Best, Neil > Dear Simon, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to help his kids avoid entry into > nearsighedness. Grow up Otis. Anyone with five seconds could have done a Google Search and found the "article" linked from your own website. Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any myopia by giving them the plus lens. An ounce of prevention(plus lens) is worth a pound of "cure"(glasses, contacts, lasik, etc) But on the bright side, the guy who became -1 is not at a disadvantage if he does alot of work because what this will mean is a reduced dependancy on reading glasses and probably wont need any glasses for intermediate such as using the computer or talking to someone at arm's length or waking up to clearly see the alarm clock. Bate's book(and supporters) even says keep a little myopia for it will help you immensely in your 2nd half of your life and allow you to see clear from near and intermediate without much compromise on distance vision. We live in a near work society so its only natural our eyes get myopic to adapt to the near work. Using the minus lens tricks the eye into thinking it needs to get more myopic for near work. If you must wear glasses, keep them OFF for near work or use bifocals/progressives! My brother has the same story. He never got worse than -2 and is now -1.25 to this day because he rejected the minus lens. He does tons of near work so it was only natural his eyes get myopic in response to his environment. As long as he takes breaks and doesnt read very close, such at the 6" point, his eyes shouldnt get any worse. My sister on the other hand is a full time contact wearer and does lots of near work. As a response, her eyes have gotten worse. We might go to the optometrist tomorrow to get her stronger contacts. She is not interested in 2nd opinion nor vision improvement. She likes the instant gratification of very clear 20/20 vision that her contacts provide and she tolerates contacts fine. She doesnt care about her eyes as long as she corrects to 20/20 and can deal with contacts fine. She will probably get lasik or whatever surgury is out 10, 15 or 20 years from now when she can no longer tolerate contacts. She may want to consider monovision or slightly undercorrecting her eyes so they are focused at near to avoid reading glasses and further axial myopia. I am not getting any surgury any time soon, if ever. I do want to get orthoK which will reduce my myopia. I dont know if orthoK can eliminate all my myopia nor do I care to be plano because of all the near work I do. I will be happy to be in the -1.25 to -2 range with as little astigmastim as possible. This will have the greatest effect of nearly eliminating my dependence on glasses. > Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any > myopia by giving them the plus lens. Prove they would have had myopia without the plus? > > Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any > > myopia by giving them the plus lens. > > Prove they would have had myopia without the plus? Actually, that's a very interesting point, Uncle Otie. I mean ... this little assertion of this fictitious friend of yours could hardly be considered science without a control group, now could it?? Perhaps you haven't heard of the scientific method. Here's a link for you. Perhaps you can learn something about it: http://teacher.pas.rochester.edu/phy_labs/AppendixE/AppendixE.html Here's an interesting quote from that site that seems *particularly* applicable to you: "Another common mistake is to ignore or rule out data which do not support the hypothesis. Ideally, the experimenter is open to the possibility that the hypothesis is correct or incorrect. Sometimes, however, a scientist may have a strong belief that the hypothesis is true (or false), or feels internal or external pressure to get a specific result. In that case, there may be a psychological tendency to find "something wrong", such as systematic effects, with data which do not support the scientist's expectations, while data which do agree with those expectations may not be checked as carefully. The lesson is that all data must be handled in the same way." > Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any > myopia by giving them the plus lens. Prove they would have had myopia without the plus? Otis> Prove to whom? The father? The daughters? It is clear from the primate studies, and the avian studies that the refractive state of these natural eyes "follow" as a dynamic sytem, a change in their average visual environment. Otis> The engineer was wise to understand this issue, and implement the prevetive method for his own faimly. Otis> No one will EVER ask you to develop wisdom (and engineering smarts) of this nature. Otis> This is why prevention (as the second-oipinion) is for the people who value their distant vision and will take this "first step" towards prevention. Otis> The "easy" way is indeed the minus, and the effect is immediate and obvious. I can not argue with that kind of "success" can I? If you like it -- wear it -- but do not complain about your stair-case myopia after it is too late to do anything about it. Best, Otis > Otis> The "easy" way is indeed the minus, > and the effect is immediate and obvious. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > myopia after it is too late to do anything > about it. Neil> Is there any proof that minus lenses increase the rate at which one becomes myopic? Neil> or are you just vocalizing from your posterior again? Neil> Because the research I've seen seems to indicate that just the opposite is true. Neil> Otis?? Neil> Are you off your meds? >>Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any >>myopia by giving them the plus lens. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > of these natural eyes "follow" as a dynamic > sytem, a change in their average visual environment. Good. Im glad you said that. Im a computer programmer, where's my myopia? Im hyperopic. Your theory of prevention obviously doesn't work in all cases. Maybe your theory is flawed? Maybe theres another factor you're ignoring? The guy in the story who wore plus glasses didn't have his myopia reversed. It obviously doesn't reverse myopia in all cases. Maybe it's just a placebo and you're ignorant and you should be looking for some other preventative method? "Prove they would have had myopia without the plus?" "Please tell us how you know this works. Anecdotes aren't enough." http://www.preventmyopia.org/prescription.html http://www.chinamyopia.org/stopmyopiaenglish.htm http://www.myopia.org/page2.htm http://www.nearsightedness.org/ "I recently heard a (very respected) lasik surgeon advertising: "lasik fixes the damage caused by years of wearing glasses" It made me wonder how this group would respond to a claim like that..." I would consider lasik a treatment rather than a cure. It does not address the underlaying causes for your myopia. natural vision improvement does and teaches you how to use your eyes correctly to reduce your myopia. If your myopia is low, less than -3 then vision improvement can improve you to the point of 20/40, meeting the DMV or even achieve plano! Higher amounts of myopia can be reduced. People like lasik because its quick, instant gratification(if things dont go amiss) your eyes can still get worse after lasik just like they can get worse for glasses and contact wearers. From what ive seen, about half of the lasik people are no longer 20/20 UCVA at the 5 year period with a typical pescription of -.5 to -1.25 I can tell you all the stories of people back in glasses years after lasik. Some people end up under/over corrected or regress shortly after lasik. Theres enhancements but its more risk. Lasik will NOT gurantee 20/20 or whatever your BCVA is, it will probably get you closer to plano and reduce or make you less dependant on glasses. Many people still wear glasses after lasik for reading, driving, watching movies, etc. "Im a computer programmer, where's my myopia? Im hyperopic. Your theory of prevention obviously doesn't work in all cases. Maybe your theory is flawed? Maybe theres another factor you're ignoring?" You did not do much near work when you were younger and therefore kept your eye in a positive refractive state. "The guy in the story who wore plus glasses didn't have his myopia reversed. It obviously doesn't reverse myopia in all cases." probably because his eyeball already enlongated into -1 axial myopia. All he could do was prevent further myopia progression which he successfully did. Otis emphasizes preventing myopia at the treshold and rejecting the minus lens. Once you accept it, axial myopia occurs and this becomes permaent. > "Prove they would have had myopia without the plus?" snip garbage which didn't relate to my question... > "Im a computer programmer, where's my myopia? Im hyperopic. Your > theory of prevention obviously doesn't work in all cases. Maybe your > theory is flawed? Maybe theres another factor you're ignoring?" > > You did not do much near work when you were younger and therefore > kept your eye in a positive refractive state. Ahh... so without even knowing my childhood, you bend the fact and create an fictional environment to prove your theory? I would be interested to know what "much near work" means. Enough to get myopia I guess is your yard stick, and anyone who does "much near work" and doesn't get myopia can therefore be disregarded as not doing "much near work". Would schooling and TV from the age of 4 do it? With computing from the age of 8? > "The guy in the story who wore plus glasses didn't have his myopia > reversed. It obviously doesn't reverse myopia in all cases." > > probably because his eyeball already enlongated into -1 axial myopia. > All he could do was prevent further myopia progression which he > successfully did. Can't help but saying, whatever. > You did not do much near work when you were younger and therefore kept > your eye in a positive refractive state. Ummm, bad assumption. I'm another hyperope (+4, +2.5) who had his "nose in the book" my entire youth AND have done nothing but close work my entire carrer. A little "stair-case myopia" would have been good for me...;-) Yes, We have asked Otis to explain why hyperops, who strain to see at near their entire live, do not change and become less hyperopic or even myopic over time. If they did then that would support his "eyestrain at near" hypothesis. But he just ignors that question. In general he just ignors any question that he can't answer. Otis has a repetoire of about a dozen "arguments" that he keeps repeating time after time. They range from a romantic story about "Raphaelson and the Printers Son" to anecdotal stories about engineer/pilots who he helped regain their eyesight. Otis has been in this newsgroup a long time and despite being repeatedly proven wrong he keeps on blurting out the same tired old stuff year after year. Whats amazing is he keeps trying to act like a "man of science". Actually its kind of pathetic. Now Aceman on the other hand is a sociopathic adolescent who doesn't have a real life-- he just seems to like to "live" some artificial life posting and surfing on the internet. Its probably best to just killfile both of them. =============== >> You did not do much near work when you were younger and therefore kept >> your eye in a positive refractive state. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > entire youth AND have done nothing but close work my entire carrer. A > little "stair-case myopia" would have been good for me...;-) Dear RM, Subject: Refractive states of primates in the wild. Primates in the whild have refractive states running from zero to +2 diopters. These are objective scientific facts. That is just the way it is. Under NO CIRCUMSTANCE HAVE I EVER SAID THEY ARE "STRAINING" TO SEE. That is a results of your false notion of the behavior of the natural eye. To further respond: RM> We have asked Otis to explain why hyperops, who strain to see at near their entire live, Otis> This is your false understanding of the behavior of the natural eye. Sorry you do not understand these basic facts. RM> do not change and become less hyperopic or even myopic over time. RM> If they did then that would support his "eyestrain at near" Otis> I never said anything like this -- at all. And I never use your term "eye-strain" to describe the natural process were the eye changes it refractive state, with a change in its average visual environment. Otis> This change is as a funtioning auto-focused camera, and is part of the behavior of the natural primate eye. Otis> The natural eyes refractive state (plus or minus) is established by its average visual environment. (Primate studies which you do not understand -- so you totally reject them.) Best, Otis > Dear RM, > > Subject: Refractive states of primates in the wild. > > Primates in the whild Eh? Let me correct: Subject: Hyperopes who have consistently done near work their entire lives are not myopic do not fit Otis's theory Dear Simon, Subject: Refractive behavior of the natural primate eye. (Use NEUTRAL WORDS to describe what you measure.) The "holy grail" of measurement is atropine -- and REFRACTIVE STATE. If you take a population of primtes that have a refractive state of -1/2 diopter (MYOPIC), and place a plus lens on them, then there refractive state will "more positive" to a refractive state of +1/2 diopter, and suddenly you have a bunch of HYPEROPIC primates. But just say refractive state is either positive or negative -- and do not bother with biased words based on a fractured theory of practice. Best, Otis > If you take a population of primtes that have > a refractive state of -1/2 diopter (MYOPIC), [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > suddenly you have a bunch of HYPEROPIC > primates. Why doesn't it happen in humans? -MT That's all well and good, except that I did not wear glasses while my "nose was in the book" during junior high, high school and college. (When my "refractive state" should have been "moving down" at -1/2 diopter per year) And my work in software engineering has dictated close work for 20 years since then. About 5 years ago, I couldn't see well enough to do close work anymore and began to wear glasses. And lo and behold, I had a "positive refractive state", not "stair-case myopia". Contradicts your theory. > That's all well and good, except that I did not wear glasses while my > "nose was in the book" during junior high, high school and college. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Contradicts your theory. Similar story here. No glasses during, ooh what, 20 years of schooling and education and tv, and computer abuse and misuse... a further 8 years of computer and tv misuse and abuse in my job programming... picked up a pair of hyperopic glasses last year! > Dear Simon, > > Subject: Refractive behavior of the natural primate eye. Nope. That wasn't my subject. Read again, dick head. Dear Simon, Subject: The proven dynamic behavior of all fundamental eyes. Yes, Simon -- you do not have any interest in scientific proof. You made that scientific fact absolutely clear. But second-opnion ODs like Steve Leung have that type of interest and support their own children in PREVENTION they way that this "preventive" engineer did with HIS children -- based on the scientific facts concerning the behavior of all natural primate eyes. Best, Otis > Yes, Simon -- you do not > have any interest in scientific > proof. Sure we do. We'd like a scientific reason why it doesn't happen in humans. We'd like a scientific reason why hyperopes don't get nearsighted. We'd like a scientific reason why myopes who wear glasses get no more nearsighted than myopes who don't. -MT > > Yes, Simon -- you do not > > have any interest in scientific [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We'd like a scientific reason why myopes who wear glasses get no more > nearsighted than myopes who don't. Those are excellent inquiries, Mike. Surely, Uncle Otis, you have equally excellent explanations to those simple issues, no? I mean ... if you aren't willing to explain why the data don't support your hypothesis, then how can we conclude that you are anything but ill, wrong, or both? Waiting..... > > Yes, Simon -- you do not > > have any interest in scientific [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > We'd like a scientific reason why myopes who wear glasses get no more > nearsighted than myopes who don't. The scientific science facts about pure science show that only pure science can prove scientific science facts. The concepts about pure scientific science cannot be understood by you medicine folks, because you aren't scientific scientist science people. Do you understand this scientific science principle about purely scientific science concepts?  SignatureDan Abel dabel@sonic.net Petaluma, California, USA > Subject: The proven dynamic behavior > of all fundamental eyes. WTF?The proven nature of what? WHo proved it? What is a fundamental eye? You are full of crap. You use assumptions with no basis and try to wrap it in verbology no-one understands. Why? Because you have no basis for proof. > Yes, Simon -- you do not > have any interest in scientific > proof. You made that > scientific fact absolutely clear. Who has no scientific proof? We are asking and still waiting for yours. > But second-opnion ODs like > Steve Leung have that type > of interest and support > their own children in > PREVENTION they Who is Steven Leung? He has never headlined any myopia conferences, he has no standing in Hong Kong ( I know many OD's there) and his opinion is of no value. In short, you are full of sh.t. > way that this "preventive" > engineer did with HIS > children -- based on the > scientific facts concerning > the behavior of all natural > primate eyes. Another anecdote. I thought you were demanding scientific proof from others, why do you not supply it yourself. This engineer is probably you trying to garner support for yourself. There is a good chance they were never going myopic in the first place - if they exist at all. dr grant >>Subject: The proven dynamic behavior >>of all fundamental eyes. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wrap it in verbology no-one understands. Why? Because you have no basis > for proof. Plus it has no bearing on my question. i swear, Otis is just making his own words up! >>Yes, Simon 1 in a 1000 shot he got my name right! :-) Cya Simon > Dear Simon, > > Subject: The proven dynamic behavior > of all fundamental eyes. No. That was not my question at all. Would you like to take your time, and answer my question again as to why I, as a Hyperope, who did lots of close work growing up am not now Myopic? In terms you understand... 1) I am a hyperope. 2) I did a lot of close up work when I was younger and now. 3) Why has my "dynamic eye" not adjusted to being myopic? 4) I did not wear any form of glasses until 9 months ago, and I have not worn them for the past 3 months. 5) I am 28. > Yes, Simon -- you do not > have any interest in scientific > proof. Yes, I do. Please provide me an explanation to the above. > You made that > scientific fact absolutely clear. No. That's your judgement. > But second-opnion ODs like > Steve Leung have that type [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > the behavior of all natural > primate eyes. Prevention? of myopia I presume. Your "speciality" Again, this has nothing to do with why my "dynamic eye" is not myopic after many many years of close up work. Please explain you fraud. Thanks Simon >> Dear Simon, >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > >3) Why has my "dynamic eye" not adjusted to being myopic? Maybe you haven't got one of these fundamental eyes. It's only fundamental eyes that suffer. Ann >4) I did not wear any form of glasses until 9 months ago, and I have not >worn them for the past 3 months. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >Thanks >Simon > Dear Simon, > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Otis You see, sh.t for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud. > You see, sh.t for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep > asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud. DING! DING! DING! WINNER! WE HAVE A WINNER! Simon figured it out in all of about three posts. It often takes people four or five, but the conclusion is ALWAYS the same. Thanks for playing.... >>You see, sh.t for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep >>asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Thanks for playing.... Oh, you give me too little credit Neil. I knew what Otis was like a year ago, two years ago... he keeps reiterating the same rubbish, and evading straight questions. When you ask "Why is A?" He'll respond "Subject: D proves F in frozen ice" or something... Sometimes I just like playing the game. > >>You see, sh.t for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep > >>asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Sometimes I just like playing the game. Apologies, Simon. I didn't mean to denigrate you. Rather, I used you to further denigrate Otis. A fine game, indeed--roughly analogous to pin the tail on the moron. Cheers, Neil HEY, OTIS: *WHAP!* >>>>You see, sh.t for brains, you keep going on about myopic monkeys. I keep >>>>asking about me. You decline to answer. You're a fraud. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > HEY, OTIS: *WHAP!* What's the game with the pig and the stick and the candy, a pinata or something? That sounds like a betty game. Dunno what we'd get if we win! :-) >> HEY, OTIS: *WHAP!* > >What's the game with the pig and the stick and the candy, a pinata or >something? That sounds like a betty game. Dunno what we'd get if we win! :-) The winner gets a weekend away with Otis! Ann > thinking it needs to get more myopic for near work. If you must wear > glasses, keep them OFF for near work or use bifocals/progressives! Please tell us how you know this works. Anecdotes aren't enough. -MT > She doesnt care about her eyes as long as > she corrects to 20/20 and can deal with contacts fine. She will > probably get lasik or whatever surgury is out 10, 15 or 20 years from I recently heard a (very respected) lasik surgeon advertising: "lasik fixes the damage caused by years of wearing glasses" It made me wonder how this group would respond to a claim like that... between tokes on his bong, Acemanvx farted out the following remark: "because of all the near work I do" what kind of WORK do you do? or are you referring to your endless hours of surfing the internet using daddy's computer and daddy's internet connection in daddy's house? you and otis are quite a pair. get a life! > Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any > myopia by giving them the plus lens. An ounce of prevention(plus lens) [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > astigmastim as possible. This will have the greatest effect of nearly > eliminating my dependence on glasses. I can't say that it can be called a "prevention". Maybe that girls aren't myopic, but the are farsighted, they use those "reading glasses". > Thanks for sharing the story! He prevented his own children from any > myopia by giving them the plus lens. An ounce of prevention(plus lens) [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > astigmastim as possible. This will have the greatest effect of nearly > eliminating my dependence on glasses. I can't say that it can be called a "prevention". Maybe that girls aren't myopic, but the are farsighted, they use those "reading glasses". Otis's pal wrote: >Truck drivers never develop myopia Uncle Otie: all you've accomplished here is to prove that there are *other* morons besides yourself who understand neither logic nor reason, and are unable to differentiate between correlation and causation. In your case, I imagine these challenges extend to tying one's own shoelaces ... but I digress. Isn't it just as likely--if not more so--that myopics don't become truck drivers?? God, you're dumb. Never ceases to astound me ... or most people on this forum. Glad to see you and your illegitimate offspring, AceMan are getting on so well here. > Otis's pal wrote: > >Truck drivers never develop myopia [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Isn't it just as likely--if not more so--that myopics don't become > truck drivers?? Otis?? >> Otis's pal wrote: >> >Truck drivers never develop myopia [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >Otis?? Uncle Otie? Aren't you going to answer this simple, direct question?? |
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.