http://la-sight.com/LS_commDetail.asp?index=169

Here is another, 56 years old and a low hyperope. People her age have
vitrually no accomodation so even this small amount of hyperopia blurs
distance vision a fair bit and makes it impossible to see a thing from
near. I should appreciate the fact I am myopic than hyperopic! I do
want less myopia, -1.5 to -2 sounds good

fact-- children are born hyperopic.
fact-- as they grow, they tend to lose their hyperopia and move toward
emmetropia.  some progress further into myopia

so if you believe, as you claim you do, that using Otis' plus lens
treatment on children to prevent them from becoming myopia, thus
leaving them hyperopic, is a good idea then how can you turn around in
this post and claim that its worse to be hyperopic than myopic.

yeh, your right.  when you are a young, being a low hyperope isn't a
big deal.  but being when you get older it really sux.  do you want to
force people to become hyperopic by having them wear plus lenses when
they are going through emmetropization as a child?  do you begin to see
the advantage of being slightly myopic when you get middle-aged?

=============