Subject: Here are the CA standards. Note remarks about mono-vision.
DMV's Vision Screening Standards
DMV is authorized to test all applicants vision under California
Vehicle Code (CVC §12804.9(a)(1)(E) ).
Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet
the departments visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMVs
vision screening standard is:
20/40 with both eyes tested together and
20/40 in one eye and
20/70, at least, in the other eye
Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a
minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best
corrected). Visual acuity is a persons ability to see items clearly
and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or
contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you
cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license
drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard. (CVC
§12805)
Drivers With Monovision
Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or
contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision.
If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMVs vision
screening standard.
On Thursday, March 15, 2012 8:55:53 PM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Subject: Here are the CA standards. Note remarks about mono-vision.
> DMV's Vision Screening Standards
> DMV is authorized to test all applicants vision under California
> Vehicle Code (CVC §12804.9(a)(1)(E) ).
> Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet
> the departments visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMVs
> vision screening standard is:
> 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> 20/40 in one eye and
> 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a
> minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best
> corrected). Visual acuity is a persons ability to see items clearly
> and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or
> contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you
> cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license
> drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard. (CVC
> §12805)
> Drivers With Monovision
> Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or
> contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision.
> If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMVs vision
> screening standard.
Otis Brown: Once an idiot. Always an idiot.
"Monovision If you have monovision (one eye corrected for distance vision and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision) and DMV has no record of your vision condition, the DMV employee will give you a Report of Vision Examination (DL 62) and ask you to see your vision specialist. When you return with your completed DL 62, you will be asked to take a Supplemental Driving Performance Evaluation (driving test) to determine if you can drive safely."
> Subject: Here are the CA standards. Note remarks about mono-vision.
> DMV's Vision Screening Standards
> DMV is authorized to test all applicants vision under California
> Vehicle Code (CVC §12804.9(a)(1)(E) ).
> Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet
> the departments visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMVs
> vision screening standard is:
> 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> 20/40 in one eye and
> 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a
> minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best
> corrected). Visual acuity is a persons ability to see items clearly
> and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or
> contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you
> cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license
> drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard. (CVC
> §12805)
> Drivers With Monovision
> Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or
> contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision.
> If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMVs vision
> screening standard.
Otis,
Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
On Friday, March 16, 2012 8:30:28 PM UTC-6, Don W wrote:
> Otis,
> Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
> Are we going from myopia to monoocularism?
> Don W
He'll never EVER admit when he's wrong (granted: he'd be doing nothing else), but ... when it makes it through even HIS impermeable skull that he's wrong ... he usually just moves on to be wrong about something else.
I think you've been around long enough, by now, to see that.
I'd venture a guess that a third of the things HE posts contradict HIS own assertions. I mean ... that's just hilarious !
> On Mar 15, 7:55 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > Subject: Here are the CA standards. Note remarks about mono-vision.
> > DMV's Vision Screening Standards
> > DMV is authorized to test all applicants vision under California
> > Vehicle Code (CVC §12804.9(a)(1)(E) ).
> > Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet
> > the departments visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMVs
> > vision screening standard is:
> > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > 20/40 in one eye and
> > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a
> > minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best
> > corrected). Visual acuity is a persons ability to see items clearly
> > and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or
> > contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you
> > cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license
> > drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard. (CVC
> > §12805)
> > Drivers With Monovision
> > Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or
> > contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision.
> > If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMVs vision
> > screening standard.
> Otis,
> Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
On Saturday, March 17, 2012 11:53:01 AM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> This is an "informational" group. You can ignore concepts science,
> and facts if you choose to do so.
Don: at least he's being honest about his approach to the subject....
On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> This is an "informational" group. You can ignore concepts science,
> and facts if you choose to do so.
> On Mar 16, 10:30 pm, Don W <dwil...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> > On Mar 15, 7:55 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > > Subject: Here are the CA standards. Note remarks about mono-vision.
> > > DMV's Vision Screening Standards
> > > DMV is authorized to test all applicants vision under California
> > > Vehicle Code (CVC §12804.9(a)(1)(E) ).
> > > Anyone who applies for an original or renewal driver license must meet
> > > the departments visual acuity (vision) screening standard. DMVs
> > > vision screening standard is:
> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > > If you cannot meet the vision screening standard, you must have a
> > > minimum visual acuity in at least one eye better than 20/200 (best
> > > corrected). Visual acuity is a persons ability to see items clearly
> > > and sharply and to recognize small details. You may wear glasses or
> > > contact lenses to meet the minimum visual acuity standard but you
> > > cannot wear a bioptic telescopic or similar lens. DMV can not license
> > > drivers who do not meet the minimum visual acuity standard. (CVC
> > > §12805)
> > > Drivers With Monovision
> > > Monovision is one eye treated or untreated for distance by surgery or
> > > contact lenses, and one eye treated or untreated for close-up vision.
> > > If you have monovision, you may not be able to meet DMVs vision
> > > screening standard.
> > Otis,
> > Just exactly, why are you posting this subject matter right now?
> > Are we going from myopia to monoocularism?
> > Don W
After a long pause Otis pops back in and proves once again he is an idiot! Carry on Otis! In the end you just make us smile.
On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
<p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
>> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
>> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
>> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
>> > > 20/40 in one eye and
>> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
>> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
the problem?
On Monday, March 19, 2012 8:29:08 AM UTC-6, Ray wrote:
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> wrote:
> >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> the problem?
> On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> the problem?
On Monday, March 19, 2012 8:52:12 AM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
Wow.
You just NEVER have ANY idea what you're talking about, do you ?????
Just as likely -- if not more -- that the person has learned to alternate fixation, and suppress the "other" image.
Otis ? Better to be silent and thought a fool than -- year after year after year - to post and remove all doubt.
> > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> > <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> > >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> > >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> > >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> > the problem?
kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
understand.
and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
notions get displaced by medical facts.
I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
called medical science.
Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
man. Or fade away.
You are entitled to your disproven concept that 1) The natural eye is
NOT DYNAMIC and THERFORE 2) A neither a) Long-term near has NO EFFECT
on the refractive state of said natural eye, and b) A minus lens has
no effect on the natural eye.
That is objective science and fact -- and you are totally blind to it.
Have a nice day,
On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation" <p.clar...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> > > <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> > > >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> > > >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> > > >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > > >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > > >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > > >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > > I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> > > the problem?
> kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
> understand.
> and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
> difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
> emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
> patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
> about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
> and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
> facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
> time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
> default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
> Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
> forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
> building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
> something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
> just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
> time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
> disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
> you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
> fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
> notions get displaced by medical facts.
> I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
> the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
> called medical science.
> Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
> myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
> Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
> proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
> that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
> man. Or fade away.
On Wednesday, March 21, 2012 1:04:50 PM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Hi Blue,
> You are entitled to your disproven concept that 1) The natural eye is
> NOT DYNAMIC and THERFORE 2) A neither a) Long-term near has NO EFFECT
> on the refractive state of said natural eye, and b) A minus lens has
> no effect on the natural eye.
> That is objective science and fact -- and you are totally blind to it.
> Have a nice day,
Damn, Otis. You are SUCH an idiot !!!
Every time you get something wildly wrong (nearly always), you fall back on that tired old dodge.
> On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> > > <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> > > >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> > > >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> > > >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > > >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > > >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > > >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > > I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> > > the problem?
> kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
> understand.
> and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
> difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
> emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
> patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
> about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
> and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
> facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
> time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
> default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
> Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
> forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
> building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
> something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
> just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
> time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
> disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
> you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
> fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
> notions get displaced by medical facts.
> I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
> the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
> called medical science.
> Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
> myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
> Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
> proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
> that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
> man. Or fade away.
On Thursday, March 22, 2012 2:53:51 PM UTC-6, Science_Research wrote:
> Hi Blue OD,
> Did you not read the title.
> This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> rambling about.
Pot ... kettle ... black.
You really are either off your meds, losing your mind, or -- as usual -- both.
> This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> rambling about.
> On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation" <p.clar...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> > > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> > > > <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> > > > >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> > > > >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> > > > >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > > > >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > > > >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > > > >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > > > I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> > > > the problem?
> > kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
> > understand.
> > and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
> > difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
> > emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
> > patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
> > about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
> > and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
> > facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
> > time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
> > default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
> > Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
> > forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
> > building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
> > something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
> > just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
> > time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
> > disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
> > you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
> > fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
> > notions get displaced by medical facts.
> > I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
> > the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
> > called medical science.
> > Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
> > myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
> > Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
> > proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
> > that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
> > man. Or fade away.
Yes. Monovision is yet another topic in vision that you know nothing
about but misinformation and personal bias. Is this an example of
"engineering-science".
> On Mar 22, 4:53 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Blue OD,
> > Did you not read the title.
> > This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> > about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> > rambling about.
> > On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> > wrote:
> > > On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > > > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> > > > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> wrote:
> > > > > >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> > > > > >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> > > > > >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> > > > > >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > > > > >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > > > > >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > > > > >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > > > > I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> > > > > the problem?
> > > kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
> > > understand.
> > > and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
> > > difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
> > > emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
> > > patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
> > > about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
> > > and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
> > > facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
> > > time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
> > > default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
> > > Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
> > > forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
> > > building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
> > > something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
> > > just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
> > > time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
> > > disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
> > > you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
> > > fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
> > > notions get displaced by medical facts.
> > > I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
> > > the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
> > > called medical science.
> > > Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
> > > myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
> > > Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
> > > proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
> > > that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
> > > man. Or fade away.
> Yes. Monovision is yet another topic in vision that you know nothing
> about but misinformation and personal bias. Is this an example of
> "engineering-science".
> Go build a bridge.
May want to clarify that ... so he doesn't wind up in the dentistry forum ;-)
> On Mar 22, 4:53 pm, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
> > Hi Blue OD,
> > Did you not read the title.
> > This was about mono-vision, and some concerns some people might have
> > about its effect on their DMV. It is not about anything you are
> > rambling about.
> > On Mar 20, 10:59 pm, "Dr. Big Blue Nation" <p.clar...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> > > On Mar 19, 10:52 am, Science_Research <otisbr...@embarqmail.com>
> > > wrote:
> > > > Then the person who did the mono-vision for you went "light" on the
> > > > more negative eye. A wise person indeed -- you should thank him.
> > > > On Mar 19, 10:29 am, Ray <R...@ray.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Sun, 18 Mar 2012 18:59:50 -0700 (PDT), "Dr. Big Blue Nation"
> > > > > <p.clar...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > >On Saturday, March 17, 2012 1:53:01 PM UTC-4, Science_Research wrote:
> > > > > >> It would be wise for the person who gets "mono-vision" to realize that
> > > > > >> he will not qualify to drive a car with no lens.
> > > > > >> > > 20/40 with both eyes tested together and
> > > > > >> > > 20/40 in one eye and
> > > > > >> > > 20/70, at least, in the other eye
> > > > > >> > > Minimum Visual Acuity Requirement
> > > > > I have monovision and can pass those three tests unaided, so what is
> > > > > the problem?
> > > kind of depends on his age doesn't it Otis? Or maybe you don't
> > > understand.
> > > and why does his eye have to be "negative". I know you have
> > > difficulty following this, but not everyone is a myope. There are
> > > emmetropes, amblyopes, anisometropes, hyperopes, astigmates, and
> > > patients with mixed prescriptions. You are only capable of thinking
> > > about things through the narrow slit of your own personal experiences
> > > and that's what makes you so unable to understand the overwhelming
> > > facts that some trained and experienced professionals have taken the
> > > time to present to you here over the years. Yet instead you just
> > > default to your standard "dullard denial" stance.
> > > Why don't you go off somewhere else (there's probably a "dementia"
> > > forum out there somewhere) and give someone engineering advise on
> > > building airplane engines, bridges, or something. Perhaps you have
> > > something of value to say to someone on those topics. But here you
> > > just keep shoving your foot farther and farther into your mouth every
> > > time you open it. You're kind of pathetic. You are doing a
> > > disservice to the old spectacle-peddlers whose outdated theories that
> > > you still adhere to. Ever notice how there seems to be fewer and
> > > fewer of your like-minded buddies around. Science moves on. Old
> > > notions get displaced by medical facts.
> > > I know what Raphaelson and Merrill Allen have done! Fade away. Go
> > > the way of the buggy-whip. There's a new sheriff in town, and it's
> > > called medical science.
> > > Indeed there is a lot of ongoing modern research on the topic of
> > > myopia development all over the world. Why aren't you all over that?
> > > Why do you keep clinging onto a few old studies that have since been
> > > proven wrong, and instead try to use some convoluted logic to proclaim
> > > that all primate eyes are "fundamental eyes" blah blah blah. Get real
> > > man. Or fade away.
> Yes. Monovision is yet another topic in vision that you know nothing
> about but misinformation and personal bias. Is this an example of
> "engineering-science".
