 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Vision / October 2007reading glasses
I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in the case. Why would they be prescribed for reading? I thought minus wearers could see near but not far. Seems all the wrong way round! > I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on > just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 Near and far are relative terms. I don't know the specifics of what you observed on the train, and I am not an optometrist or optician, but as a long time myope I can guess... On the train I presume the reading material is located on the lap of the person. This distance is too much even for a mild myope, and necessitates glasses in order to see the print, especially a small print (like in a newspaper). Why do they remove the glasses when they get off the train? Could be many reasons. They see well enough to walk around (they don't need sharp vision for that), they want to look "pretty", they might believe that glasses are not good for them, -- who knows? "Ms.Brainy" <mikabrainy@gmail.com> wrote in message > On the train I presume the reading material is located on the lap of > the person. This distance is too much even for a mild myope, and > necessitates glasses in order to see the print, especially a small > print (like in a newspaper). Wrong. The distance is too **short** for a myope with presbyopia. Hence, the need for plus glasses. > "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > On the train I presume the reading material is located on the lap of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wrong. The distance is too **short** for a myope with presbyopia. Hence, the > need for plus glasses. Still hooked on me, Santa Klown? Apparently your desire to join the Hall of P.I.s on s.m.v. is growing. Are you competing with Otis? Philipa wrote that she sees "people with MINUS prescriptions put them on just to read". Whether she is "novice" here or not is irrelevant. Of course it's possible that she is mistaken and those people on the train put on reading glasses with PLUS lenses, but why should you assume that she is mistaken? She clearly stated that they use their "minus prescription" glasses to read, and I answered her question as asked. It's not difficult to distinguish between plus and minus lenses by just looking at them. Had the reading distance been too short (as the contender to the P.I. title argues), those people on the train would use a plus Rx and Philipa would have noticed that, I presume. Had they been presbyopic without myopia, they would use a plus Rx for reading and she would not have asked this question. The real question is why they remove their glasses when they are done with reading. Obviously, if they need a minus Rx for reading at a 2 feet distance, they are myopic and see less clearly at a larger distance. So why do they remove their MINUS Rx reading glasses? Welcome to the "Reading Comprehension Challenged Club"! "Ms.Brainy" <mikabrainy@gmail.com> wrote in message > Welcome to the "Reading Comprehension Challenged Club"! Isn't it wonderful to know that someone has an erection for you (according to another guy)? 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. Mark A & I were correct, and you were not. Don't get me wrong. I wish you the very best vision and am happy that your condition is stable. >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. Mark A & I were correct, and you were not. No, she doesn't know those people and their prescriptions, they are mere "strangers on the train". She clearly stated that "people with MINUS prescriptions put THEM (i.e. the glasses with the MINUS prescription) on for reading". Give Philipa some credit. I assume that she knows the difference between plus and minus, and she DETECTED a minus Rx. She wouldn't have asked the question had she detected a plus Rx.  SignatureMsBrainy > "Ms.Brainy" <mikabrainy@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? 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 > In article <47YOi.126$I44...@newsfe12.lga>, "KlausK" <di...@noone.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > to believe that they were wearing plus lenses, in contradiction to the > original poster? > I think the ASSUMPTION of the original poster was that a > -1 diopter lens was PRESCRIBED EXCLUSIVELY FOR NEAR. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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 f.cking idiot, but ... I digress.... So, let me help you. "I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them [reading glasses with + prescriptions] on just to read - on a train - then when they [people w/ - prescriptions] get off they [people w/ - prescriptions] put them [reading glasses with + precriptions] away in the case. Why would they [people w/ - prescriptions] be prescribed for reading? I thought minus wearers could see near but not far [i.e., why would minus wearers need plus glasses to read?]. Seems all the wrong way round!" >So, let me help you. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I thought minus wearers could see near but not far [i.e., why would minus >wearers need plus glasses to read?]. Seems all the wrong way round!" Philipa never indicated that they use a plus Rx for that rading on the train. Obviously, she never saw their written Rx. With the exception of Lena, people are not ordered when and how to use their glasses. Who told you that the glasses they were using were "prescribed for reading"? Neither you nor Philipa know that. But she was clear that they were using a minus, not plus. Your interpretation of what was spelled out is off the wall. SignatureMsBrainy Another post that failed to appear on s.m.v.: Santa Klown wrote: >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. Mark A & I were correct, and you were not. My response: No, she doesn't know those people and their prescriptions, they are mere "strangers on the train". She clearly stated that "people with MINUS prescriptions put THEM (i.e. the glasses with the MINUS prescription) on for reading". Give Philipa some credit. I assume that she knows the difference between plus and minus, and she DETECTED a minus Rx. She wouldn't have asked the question had she detected a plus Rx. >So, let me help you. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I thought minus wearers could see near but not far [i.e., why would minus >wearers need plus glasses to read?]. Seems all the wrong way round!" I must have missed where you answered my question about ... just exactly WHOM Ms. Brainy is HURTING? Thanks. >>So, let me help you. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >I must have missed where you answered my question about ... just >exactly WHOM Ms. Brainy is HURTING? As if you didn't know, Neil -- it's the pressure in the Klown's testes. I can live with it, but can he? Must be very painful. SignatureMsBrainy >>>So, let me help you. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > As if you didn't know, Neil -- it's the pressure in the Klown's testes. I > can live with it, but can he? Must be very painful. How do you know that the pressure in a man's testes is painful? Do you have any experiences? Thanks. > How do you know that the pressure in a man's testes is painful? Do you have > any experiences? I have read it in one of the posts by Otis. But frankly, your erectal issues are of very little interest to me. You should go back to explore your problems in the sex sites and groups that you have frequented in the past, instead of stalking me. "Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message > I must have missed where you answered my question about ... just > exactly WHOM Ms. Brainy is HURTING? > > Thanks. Why are you so protective of Ms. Brainy? Do you also have an erection for her? Thanks. >Why are you so protective of Ms. Brainy? Do you also have an erection for >her? a) you didn't answer my question. No surprise there. b) in a given situation, I'm usually willing to defend the one who is right. Easy call, in this case. c) you STILL didn't answer my question. At least I have made it ABUNDANTLY CLEAR why I object to Otis's actions: they hurt people, medically. What's your story?? For some reason my original reply to Santa Klown lost its way to s.m.v., so here it is again: > "Ms.Brainy" <mikabra...@gmail.com> wrote in message > > On the train I presume the reading material is located on the lap of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Wrong. The distance is too **short** for a myope with presbyopia. Hence, the > need for plus glasses. Still hooked on me, Santa Klown? Apparently your desire to join the Hall of P.I.s on s.m.v. is growing. Are you competing with Otis? Philipa wrote that she sees "people with MINUS prescriptions put them on just to read". Whether she is "novice" here or not is irrelevant. Of course it's possible that she is mistaken and those people on the train put on reading glasses with PLUS lenses, but why should you assume that she is mistaken? She clearly stated that they use their "minus prescription" glasses to read, and I answered her question as asked. It's not difficult to distinguish between plus and minus lenses by just looking at them. Had the reading distance been too short (as the contender to the P.I. title argues), those people on the train would use a plus Rx and Philipa would have noticed that, I presume. Had they been presbyopic without myopia, they would use a plus Rx for reading and she would not have asked this question. The real question is why they remove their glasses when they are done with reading. Obviously, if they need a minus Rx for reading at a 2 feet distance, they are myopic and see less clearly at a larger distance. So why do they remove their MINUS Rx reading glasses? Welcome to the "Reading Comprehension Challenged Club"! Another post that failed to appear on s.m.v.: Santa Klown wrote: >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. Mark A & I were correct, and you were not. My response: No, she doesn't know those people and their prescriptions, they are mere "strangers on the train". She clearly stated that "people with MINUS prescriptions put THEM (i.e. the glasses with the MINUS prescription) on for reading". Give Philipa some credit. I assume that she knows the difference between plus and minus, and she DETECTED a minus Rx. She wouldn't have asked the question had she detected a plus Rx. Another post that failed to appear on s.m.v.: Santa Klown wrote: >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. Mark A & I were correct, and you were not. My response: No, she doesn't know those people and their prescriptions, they are mere "strangers on the train". She clearly stated that "people with MINUS prescriptions put THEM (i.e. the glasses with the MINUS prescription) on for reading". Give Philipa some credit. I assume that she knows the difference between plus and minus, and she DETECTED a minus Rx. She wouldn't have asked the question had she detected a plus Rx. >I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on > just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in > the > case. Why would they be prescribed for reading? I thought minus wearers > could > see near but not far. Seems all the wrong way round! As one gets older, more plus power is needed to read up close, regardless of whether one is near sighted or farsighted. It affects almost everyone starting about age 40 and is called presbyopia. Even for someone who is nearsighted, the presbiopia may be advanced enough so that the final reading power is a plus, or sometimes it is just less of a minus than their distance vision. I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in the case. Otis> Since you are a "novice" -- how do you know what the lens is? Could be a reading glass. Please explain how you know they are minus lenses -- as a novice. Why would they be prescribed for reading? Otis> You make an assumption here. For SLIGHT nearsightedness, of 20/50, a minus 1 to -1.5 will clear the 20/20 line (if the retina and optical system is good.). The "near" vision (with good accommodation) is indeed clear. In fact, this defines the nature of nearsighedness, or a negative refractive STATE of the natural eye. I thought minus wearers could see near but not far. Otis> Unless there is a very unusual condition -- you are correct, as defined above. Seems all the wrong way round! Otis> Yes it is, as per the above. But how are you certain what the lens was that they were wearing? Best, Otis > I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on > just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 >I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on > just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in > the > case. Why would they be prescribed for reading? I thought minus wearers > could > see near but not far. Seems all the wrong way round! Glasses that look "minus" might also have an invisible bifocal. Glasses that correct astigmatism might look like minus lenses. -MT > I am only a novice here. I see people with minus prescriptions put them on > just to read - on a train - then when they get off they put them away in the > case. Why would they be prescribed for reading? I thought minus wearers could > see near but not far. Seems all the wrong way round! Possibly the glasses are not minus or are a progressive or there is also significant astigmatism. Anyway, I would think that the person would not be using them if they didn't make vision better. Dr Judy I find it funny how you guys tend to argue over so little things. If you'd been on a kids' forum, with discussions about toy cars, I might think your little squabbles would be reasonable. But as adults, it truly makes you look immature and pathetic. I'm 15, and you are probably about double my age Brainy. But you are hella immature, even I can see that. And you only argue because of some little grudge (Ms.Brainy, you tend to hold rather a lot of grudges don't you. First you turn against RT and now it's Klausk, who will you bite next, wolf?) It's just so meaningless and makes you look so stupid; and you don't even realize it because you're so cooped up to 'win' against your so-concieved opponents. It's downright disgusting, this sort of thing taking place in a science forum. When I first came here I thought it would be such an amazing place; like lots of clever smart people who were really mature. But I see that sort of thing can never happen with the regu- lar-twats. I bet the newcomers and the original poster here are thinking: "what the hell is wrong with these clowns? Can't they bloody grow up?" Zetsu > I find it funny how you guys tend to argue over so little things. If > you'd been on a kids' forum, with discussions about toy cars, I might > think your little squabbles would be reasonable. But as adults, it > truly makes you look immature and pathetic. I'm 15, and you are > probably about double my age Brainy. But you are hella immature, even > I can see that. Actually, nobody knows WHO you are, HOW OLD you are, or anything about you. To me ... you come across as totally full of sh.t ... and I'm still thinking that you're Rishi. But regardless ... you're totally full of sh.t. A veritable religious zealot stomping HIS feet on a science-based newsgroup. But ... perhaps more importantly ... you still haven't answered this really important question: Who gives a f.ck what you think? Thanks. > I find it funny how you guys tend to argue over so little things. If > you'd been on a kids' forum, with discussions about toy cars, I might [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Zetsu You are writing as if the readers are your friends. Wake up, they are not. Nobody here gives a damn about what you say, even if you continue to stick to one cyber name. As you have already admitted, you are "against" everybody on s.m.v.. Are you trying to convince those whom you constantly call "stupid" in your righteousness? That's pretty stupid! The readers are neither my friends nor my enemies. Why should I hold a grudge against someone I never met? They are merely neutrals in my standpoint, not on any side. That is the best and most intelligent position for a person to stand. I call stupid only those who are stupid, i.e. you stupid twat. > The readers are neither my friends nor my enemies. The issue is NOT how YOU perceive the readers on s.m.v. -- we know the answer to that, you are "against all of them," as you have already stated. The issue IS how THEY perceive you, and I can answer this, since you don't have the wisdom to figure it out by yourself. The readers here consider you to be a close-minded PEST, a naive believer in mystical voodoo, a LIAR, a hypocrite, a follower of a guru who has rejected you and does not even recognize you or support your efforts (despite your announcement that he is your "friend"), a coward who is hiding behind cyber false identities, a promoter of blind faith and a severely disturb individual. Your opinions account to NOTHING, and the evidence is in the thousands of responses to your idiotic posts. You continue to preach off-the- wall ideas and methods, provide no evidence (not even anecdotal), expect to reach and touch someone, and ignore the fact that there has not been even ONE person that you succeeded to convince. Your mission here has failed, but you continue as if you have succeeded. This is STUPID, very stupid. You should (if you could) fold your tail and crawl back to the blind environment of i-blindness, where you belong. You have no business here. > > 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. I find it funny how you guys tend to argue over so little things. If you'd been on a kids' forum, with discussions about toy cars, I might think your little squabbles would be reasonable. But as adults, it truly makes you look immature and pathetic. I'm 15, and you are probably about double my age Brainy. But you are hella immature, even I can see that. And you only argue because of some little grudge (Ms.Brainy, you tend to hold rather a lot of grudges don't you. First you turn against RT and now it's Klausk, who will you bite next, wolf?) It's just so meaningless and makes you look so stupid; and you don't even realize it because you're so cooped up to 'win' against your so-concieved opponents. It's downright disgusting, this sort of thing taking place in a science forum. When I first came here I thought it would be such an amazing place; like lots of clever smart people who were really mature. But I see that sort of thing can never happen with the regu- lar-twats. I bet the newcomers and the original poster here are thinking: "what the hell is wrong with these clowns? Can't they bloody grow up?" Zetsu > Possibly the glasses are not minus or are a progressive or there is > also significant astigmatism. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dr Judy Both you Judy and Mike assume that Philippa is mistaken. I agree, it's possible, and I had considered it before all the circus with the Klown errupted here. But is it possible that she is not mistaken, and if so is there another explanation to the behavior of the "strangers on the train"? 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. 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 > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Message posted via MedKB.comhttp://www.medkb.com/Uwe/Forums.aspx/vision/200710/1 On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > Too bad they were not given instructions to avoid the > minus -- except for distant objects. With a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > 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 ;-) > On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > STUDENTS to advice simple low myopes to wear their glasses only when > needed (distance vision). Really ? > > On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Really ? uh, yes. > > > On Oct 19, 7:37 pm, "otisbr...@pa.net" <otisbr...@pa.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > uh, yes. uh, well. 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. |
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.