Why do farsighted people complain about glasses?
AsianMale
myopia makes your eyes get worse? They say that glasses make your eyes
worse. They also claim that their eye exercises can cure ALL eye
diseases.
But what really makes me angry is when they have testimonials of people
who are FARSIGHTED! What does that have to do with myopia reversal?
Furthermore I have discovered that this so-called myopia, and
astigmatism prevention/reversal are only possible for the slightly
myopic.
But seriously, why are these farsighted people so amazed that they
"improved" their vision, when actually all they did was move their eyes
in a more negative direction?
Is their "improvement" supposed to impress us who are myopic?
Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
myopia.
Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
vision "improvement" at all.
Does anyone know why they are?
The Real Bev
> Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
> Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
> board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
> from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
> glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
> myopia.
>
> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
> why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
> vision "improvement" at all.
>
> Does anyone know why they are?
Because, jerk, farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses.
Add astigmatism and it gets worse. You might want to check a dictionary
before you mouth off next time.
--
Cheers, Bev
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
"I love to go down to the schoolyard and watch all the
little children jump up and down and run around yelling and
screaming...They don't know I'm only using blanks." --Emo
youi...@yahoo.com
I'm sure they can see the board from the back of the room, right?
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > AsianMale wrote:
> >
> > > Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
> > > Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
> > > board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
> > > from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
> > > glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
> > > myopia.
> > >
> > > Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
> > > why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
> > > vision "improvement" at all.
> > >
> > > Does anyone know why they are?
> >
> > Because, jerk, farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses.
> > Add astigmatism and it gets worse. You might want to check a dictionary
> > before you mouth off next time.
>
Certainly. Without a doubt I would be able to see that there is a board in
the front of the room if I were sitting in the back of the room. The problem
arises only when I want to read what's written on it.
AsianMale
that are "far away". If the blackboard is 20 feet away, why should not
you be able to see it?
Rod Speed
"AsianMale" <youi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117947034.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Basically its inconvenient to need glasses for reading.
Rod Speed
"The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:42A287C9...@myrealbox.com...
> AsianMale wrote:
>
>> Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
>> Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
>> board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
>> from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
>> glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
>> myopia.
>>
>> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
>> why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
>> vision "improvement" at all.
>>
>> Does anyone know why they are?
> Because, jerk, farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses.
Wrong. Most of them only need glasses when reading.
> Add astigmatism and it gets worse.
> You might want to check a dictionary before you mouth off next time.
Or you might. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=farsighted
The Real Bev
>
> "The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> > AsianMale wrote:
> >
> >> Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
> >> Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
> >> board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
> >> from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
> >> glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
> >> myopia.
> >>
> >> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
> >> why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
> >> vision "improvement" at all.
> >>
> >> Does anyone know why they are?
>
> > Because, jerk, farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses.
>
> Wrong. Most of them only need glasses when reading.
Those people have normal vision.
Hyperopes do not have normal vision. As hyperopes get older, they can
accommodate less and less and it becomes harder and harder to focus close up.
Eventually NOTHING can be focused. I didn't need to wear glasses for reading
until I was 38. Now I need them for everything. If you don't, be grateful.
> > Add astigmatism and it gets worse.
>
> > You might want to check a dictionary before you mouth off next time.
>
> Or you might. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=farsighted
Whatever. I suspect that the definition in a medical dictionary might be
quite different...
http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/hyperopia.jsp
What do YOU consider the proper word for people whose eyeballs are too short
to allow the lens+cornea to ever focus the image on the retina?
--
Cheers,
Bev
666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666666
"I wish I had more time to seek out the dark forces
and join their hellish crusade." -- Clarice
Don Klipstein
>Do you ever go on all these alternatives to myopia websites that say
>myopia makes your eyes get worse? They say that glasses make your eyes
>worse. They also claim that their eye exercises can cure ALL eye
>diseases.
>
>But what really makes me angry is when they have testimonials of people
>who are FARSIGHTED! What does that have to do with myopia reversal?
>Furthermore I have discovered that this so-called myopia, and
>astigmatism prevention/reversal are only possible for the slightly
>myopic.
>
>But seriously, why are these farsighted people so amazed that they
>"improved" their vision, when actually all they did was move their eyes
>in a more negative direction?
>
>Is their "improvement" supposed to impress us who are myopic?
>
>Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
I am a farsighted person that makes my eyeglass providers undercorrect
my prescription slightly, and I still deteriorate to an extent that gets
notably worse every few years. I need "reading glasses" now most of the
time to see well anything closer than my 17 inch computer monitor!
Although I surely say this in the direction of saying that eye exercise
programs are about 80% BS!!! Exercise your eyes as best as possible, and
this means you need at age 50 what you otherwise would have needed at age
45, or need at age 45 what you would otherwise would have needed at age 41
or 40!
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
Rod Speed
"The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:42A29477...@myrealbox.com...
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> "The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
>> > AsianMale wrote:
>> >
>> >> Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
>> >> Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
>> >> board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
>> >> from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
>> >> glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
>> >> myopia.
>> >>
>> >> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
>> >> why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
>> >> vision "improvement" at all.
>> >>
>> >> Does anyone know why they are?
>>
>> > Because, jerk, farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without
>> > glasses.
>>
>> Wrong. Most of them only need glasses when reading.
> Those people have normal vision.
Wrong. Those that dont need glasses at all have normal vision.
> Hyperopes do not have normal vision.
Correct. BUT THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED FAR SIGHTED, BECAUSE
THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
> As hyperopes get older, they can accommodate less and
> less and it becomes harder and harder to focus close up.
Separate issue entirely to your original claim that they cant see anything
clearly without glasses. They can see things at a distance fine.
> Eventually NOTHING can be focused.
Wrong. Whatever is in focus with the lense relaxed
can be seen fine, and that is what is at a distance.
> I didn't need to wear glasses for reading until I was 38.
Irrelevant to your original claim that they cant see anything
clearly without glasses. They can see things at a distance fine.
> Now I need them for everything.
Then you dont have simple hyperopia.
> If you don't, be grateful.
Irrelevant.
>>> Add astigmatism and it gets worse.
>>> You might want to check a dictionary before you mouth off next time.
>> Or you might. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=farsighted
> Whatever. I suspect that the definition in a
> medical dictionary might be quite different...
> http://www.healthatoz.com/healthatoz/Atoz/ency/hyperopia.jsp
Which says
Depending upon the amount of hyperopia, symptoms can range
from none to clear distance vision but blurry near vision
Nothing like your original.
> What do YOU consider the proper word for people whose eyeballs are
> too short to allow the lens+cornea to ever focus the image on the retina?
I didnt even comment on that term. I JUST commented on your claim
that 'farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
That is just plain wrong, as both the normal and medical dictionarys say.
Mark Nobles
Don,
You are too generous. These exercise programs are 100% Bullshit.
Exercise your eyes as best as possible, and it makes absolutely no
difference to your vision. The muscles on the eyeballs that control
focus are not the kind that are affected by exercise. The ones that
control pointing are, but not the ones that control focus. So exercise
or no, it makes no difference to your vision.
Also, slightly undercorrecting does not slow your deterioration. The
only way to do that is to make time pass more slowly. All you are doing
is giving yourself headaches for naught.
Shawn Hearn
"AsianMale" <youi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Do you ever go on all these alternatives to myopia websites that say
> myopia makes your eyes get worse? They say that glasses make your eyes
> worse. They also claim that their eye exercises can cure ALL eye
> diseases.
>
> But what really makes me angry is when they have testimonials of people
> who are FARSIGHTED! What does that have to do with myopia reversal?
> Furthermore I have discovered that this so-called myopia, and
> astigmatism prevention/reversal are only possible for the slightly
> myopic.
I never heard of such a thing. If a particular type of web site stirs
anger in you, stop looking at those kinds of web sites. No one is
holding a gun to your head forcing you to visit any web site.
Dr. Leukoma
Bev is correct. Farsighted people require accommodation to see at
every distance. True, they require accommodation MORE for close
vision, but accommodation is still required for DISTANCE vision. When
accommodation begins to fail, then the image becomes a blur -- first at
near, then also at far. AT SOME POINT, a farsighted individual cannot
see clearly at any distance.
To make the situation worse, the natural tendency to see something is
to get closer to it. For a farsighted person, this increases the blur.
A nearsighted person at least can see to insert their contact lenses.
In my experience, farsighted people tend to be more unhappy than
nearsighted people with their visual situation on a diopter equivalent
basis.
DrG
William Stacy
> THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED FAR SIGHTED, BECAUSE
> THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
It really means that they can see thing better, or easier at distance
than at near. And how well they see at far depends on age and amount of
hyperopia (far sightedness). If the amount is over 3 D. or so, they
can't see very well at any distance and are likely to have crossed eyes
without their glasses. The only people who see very clearly at far when
they are over the age of 50 are emmetropes, not hyperopes.
w.stacy, o.d.
AsianMale
Well it's basically inconvenient to not be able to wear overprescribed
minus lenses for fear that they will make the eye grow longer,
furthering the risk for detached retina. Thus it's basically
inconvenient not being able to see far while wearing weak glasses, and
not being able to see the computer screen with weak glasses. It's
basically inconvenient having a focal distance of 4 inches and
experiencing far more blar than any hyperope. It's basically
inconvenient having giant bulging eyes when I take my glasses off.
It's basically inconveninent not being able to function if your glasses
slide off your nose but yet your head is down; thus it's basically
inconvenient scrunching your nose to see anything, when a farsighted
person can just look over their glasses.
AsianMale
>Hyperopes do not have normal vision. As >hyperopes get older, they can
>accommodate less and less and it becomes >harder and harder to focus close up.
>Eventually NOTHING can be focused. I didn't >need to wear glasses for reading
>until I was 38. Now I need them for >everything. If you don't, be grateful.
WAH WAH WAH!!!! DOES BABY WANT A BOTTLE? You're right, I'll be
grateful that I need glasses to do EVERYTHING, that, even with glasses
I STILL can't have clear vision unless I put on my overprescribed minus
lenses which will make the image MORE BLURRY. I cannot function
without glasses! At least you can go out and look at the stars.
Bill 2
"AsianMale" <youi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117947034.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
> why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
> vision "improvement" at all.
>
> Does anyone know why they are?
I don't understand why farsighted people are God's gift, at best they still
need glasses to read, so there still is improvement to be had.
I'm neither farsighted, nor nearsighted (at least not to a noticeable
extent), so I can read writing inches from my eyes, or the highway sign a
hundred or so feet away, without any corrective lenses.
AsianMale
>every distance. True, they require accommodation MORE for close
>vision, but accommodation is still required for DISTANCE vision. When
>accommodation begins to fail, then the image becomes a blur -- first at
>near, then also at far. AT SOME POINT, a farsighted individual cannot
>see clearly at any distance.
>To make the situation worse, the natural tendency to see something is
>to get closer to it. For a farsighted person, this increases the blur.
> A nearsighted person at least can see to insert their contact lenses.
>In my experience, farsighted people tend to be more unhappy than
>nearsighted people with their visual situation on a diopter equivalent
>basis.
If farsighted people are so boohoo, then why don't they try on some
minus lenses and hen do some closework. That will "improve" their
hyperopia. See? I have all the answers, no matter how sarcastic they
are.
Although it has not been proved that not wearing glasses prevents
deterioration, it has been proved that they destroy your eyes. So just
get a farsighted person and give them some minus lenses and then block
out all their windows. They will be accomodating here and there and
pretty soon their eyeball will grow so long they will become myopic.
There's a great solution.
Charles
AsianMale <youi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> thus it's basically inconvenient scrunching your nose
It is inconvenient going to the toilet before relieving oneself but
somehow we manage. Life is full of inconveniences we have to live with
everyday. Millions of people manage to wear glasses. Life goes on...
--
Charles
Warren
Does anyone know why you're posting to these newsgroups?
to_you...@yahoo.com
<snipped>
>basically inconvenient
<snipped>
>basically inconvenient
<snipped>
>basically inconvenient
<snipped>
>basically inconvenient
<snipped>
>basically inconveninent
<snipped>
>basically inconvenient
Actually "it's basically inconvenient" to have to delete your posts.
Bill 2
Mindless stuff, really.
Tock
why don't we have more farsighted people in politics?
-Tock
Chuck Olson
<DaveJohnson12@nomail.> wrote in message
news:drf6a1hk9um2m9ge8...@4ax.com...
But you can buy your glasses for $5 each while us nearsighted have to pay
$120 a pair for our corrective lenses. The farsighted should not be so
unhappy. Besides they can light a fire with their lenses, while the
nearsighted will have to rub two sticks together a whole lot - - enjoy your
fire, you farsighted fockers!.
Simon Dean
> experiencing far more blar than any hyperope. It's basically
> inconvenient having giant bulging eyes when I take my glasses off.
Do you have a thyroid problem?
Rod Speed
Dr. Leukoma <d...@leukoma.com> wrote in message
news:1117974500....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>> Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
>>>>>> Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
>>>>>> board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
>>>>>> from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
>>>>>> glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
>>>>>> myopia.
>>>>>> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones.
>>>>>> I don't see why farsighted people are even concerned
>>>>>> with vision exercises or vision "improvement" at all.
>>>>>> Does anyone know why they are?
>>>>> Because, jerk, farsighted people can't
>>>>> see ANYTHING clearly without glasses.
>>>> Wrong. Most of them only need glasses when reading.
>>> Those people have normal vision.
>> Wrong. Those that dont need glasses at all have normal vision.
>>> Hyperopes do not have normal vision.
>> Correct. BUT THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
>> THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED FAR SIGHTED, BECAUSE
>> THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
> Bev is correct.
Like hell she is with that completely silly claim that 'farsighted
people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
> Farsighted people require accommodation to see at every distance.
Bullshit. Most obviously those who ONLY need reading glasses.
> True, they require accommodation MORE for close vision,
> but accommodation is still required for DISTANCE vision.
Bullshit. Most obviously those who ONLY need reading glasses.
> When accommodation begins to fail, then the image becomes
> a blur -- first at near, then also at far. AT SOME POINT, a
> farsighted individual cannot see clearly at any distance.
Pity about those who ONLY need reading glasses.
> To make the situation worse, the natural tendency
> to see something is to get closer to it.
Thats just plain wrong too with those who do need reading glasses.
THEY tend to hold things at a distance so they can read it when they
dong have their reading glasses handy and their vision isnt too bad.
> For a farsighted person, this increases the blur.
Irrelevant to her completely silly claim that 'farsighted
people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
> A nearsighted person at least can see to insert their contact lenses.
Irrelevant to her completely silly claim that 'farsighted
people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
> In my experience, farsighted people tend to be
> more unhappy than nearsighted people with their
> visual situation on a diopter equivalent basis.
Irrelevant to her completely silly claim that 'farsighted
people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
Sue
>
> Although it has not been proved that not wearing glasses prevents
> deterioration, it has been proved that they destroy your eyes.
If that's true, I'm a little puzzled as to what those of us who need
glasses are supposed to do.
I mean, there aren't a whole lot of alternatives to wearing glasses. I'm
guessing contacts aren't any better, and not everyone can wear them anyway.
Laser surgery? Just letting everything be a blur? If glasses destroy
your eyes, what other choices do you have?
Meifumado
Please don't post this here.
Respectfully,
Pete
Mike Tyner
"AsianMale" <youi...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Although it has not been proved that not wearing glasses prevents
> deterioration, it has been proved that they destroy your eyes.
According to whom?
> So just
> get a farsighted person and give them some minus lenses and then block
> out all their windows. They will be accomodating here and there and
> pretty soon their eyeball will grow so long they will become myopic.
Silly, they don't need minus lenses. Their eyes have "the dreaded minus"
built in. Why don't they get nearsighted? Is it the windows?
> There's a great solution.
The problem and the solution are both imaginary.
-MT, OD
Meifumado
Meifumado
Meifumado
Mike Tyner
"Rod Speed" <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
> Irrelevant to her completely silly claim that 'farsighted
> people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
It's true for every hyperope her age. What's silly is to scoff at her and
pretend to know her symptoms better than she does.
-MT
Rod Speed
Mike Tyner <mty...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:SoLoe.14351$M36....@newsread1.news.atl.earthlink.net...
> Rod Speed <rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Irrelevant to her completely silly claim that 'farsighted
>> people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
> It's true for every hyperope her age.
Pity that she didnt say anything about age.
> What's silly is to scoff at her and pretend to know her symptoms better than
> she does.
Her symptoms are completely irrelevant to the
GENERAL claim she made about the farsighted.
Tush Smells Bush Kills!!!!!!!!!!!
I got mine over five years ago and it's been great.
The Real Bev
>
> "The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
>
> > Hyperopes do not have normal vision.
>
> Correct. BUT THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
If you can see both far and near you are an emmetrope. If you can see near,
but not far, you are a myope. If you can see far, but not near, you are a
hyperope. Carry myopia far enough and you can still focus on stuff an inch
from your nose. Carry hyperopia far enough and infinity isn't far enough away
for you to focus.
The word 'hyperopia' is ambiguous. Can we leave it at that?
> THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED FAR SIGHTED, BECAUSE
> THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
>
> > As hyperopes get older, they can accommodate less and
> > less and it becomes harder and harder to focus close up.
>
> Separate issue entirely to your original claim that they cant see anything
> clearly without glasses. They can see things at a distance fine.
>
> > Eventually NOTHING can be focused.
>
> Wrong. Whatever is in focus with the lense relaxed
> can be seen fine, and that is what is at a distance.
>
> > I didn't need to wear glasses for reading until I was 38.
>
> Irrelevant to your original claim that they cant see anything
> clearly without glasses. They can see things at a distance fine.
>
> > Now I need them for everything.
>
> Then you dont have simple hyperopia.
No, I don't. If I did, I'd need simple +3D and +5D lenses in order to see
street signs at useful distances (like across the street). To read at normal
distances, I need to add 2.25D to those numbers.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=/=\=
"Sure, everyone's in favor of saving Hitler's brain, but when
you put it into the body of a great white shark, suddenly
you're a madman." --Futurama
The Real Bev
Indeed. The stars that I can see without glasses are roughly equivalent to
fuzzy full moons. Actually, more like comets with two short stubby tails,
each about 10 degrees off plumb.
--
Cheers. Bev
==========================================================
It's not true that Lucas, in 1947, tried to get Parliament
to repeal Ohm's Law. They withdrew their efforts when they
met too much resistance.
The Real Bev
>
> Don Klipstein <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote:
>
> > AsianMale wrote:
> > >Do you ever go on all these alternatives to myopia websites that say
> > >myopia makes your eyes get worse? They say that glasses make your eyes
> > >worse. They also claim that their eye exercises can cure ALL eye
> > >diseases.
> > >
> > >But what really makes me angry is when they have testimonials of people
> > >who are FARSIGHTED! What does that have to do with myopia reversal?
> > >Furthermore I have discovered that this so-called myopia, and
> > >astigmatism prevention/reversal are only possible for the slightly
> > >myopic.
> > >
> > >But seriously, why are these farsighted people so amazed that they
> > >"improved" their vision, when actually all they did was move their eyes
> > >in a more negative direction?
> > >
> > >Is their "improvement" supposed to impress us who are myopic?
> > >
> >
> > my prescription slightly, and I still deteriorate to an extent that gets
> > notably worse every few years. I need "reading glasses" now most of the
> > time to see well anything closer than my 17 inch computer monitor!
See my comment at the bottom. My reading glasses from 10 years ago now make
fine mid-range glasses for fixing the car, etc.
> > Although I surely say this in the direction of saying that eye exercise
> > programs are about 80% BS!!! Exercise your eyes as best as possible, and
> > this means you need at age 50 what you otherwise would have needed at age
> > 45, or need at age 45 what you would otherwise would have needed at age 41
> > or 40!
> >
> Don,
> You are too generous. These exercise programs are 100% Bullshit.
> Exercise your eyes as best as possible, and it makes absolutely no
> difference to your vision. The muscles on the eyeballs that control
> focus are not the kind that are affected by exercise. The ones that
> control pointing are, but not the ones that control focus. So exercise
> or no, it makes no difference to your vision.
>
> Also, slightly undercorrecting does not slow your deterioration. The
> only way to do that is to make time pass more slowly. All you are doing
> is giving yourself headaches for naught.
It may be noted that myopia decreases with age, so no matter what they do
nearsighted people will grow more farsighted as they get older. So do
farsighted people :-(
The Real Bev
No you don't. If you aren't hung up on fashionable (read "expensive") frames
you can get prescription glasses for half that (plus the exam, of course) by
smart shopping. Moreover, we can get + lenses for a buck a pair, but
generally only up to about +3D. Better than nothing, of course.
> The farsighted should not be so
> unhappy. Besides they can light a fire with their lenses, while the
> nearsighted will have to rub two sticks together a whole lot - - enjoy your
> fire, you farsighted fockers!.
That doesn't work. Poke a hole in a dry log, put in some dry burnable stuff,
put a pointy stick in the hole and twirl it between your palms.
Bill 2
Instead of your palms, fashion a bow with a stick and some string / string
substitute, and use this. Much move leverage.
Rod Speed
>>> Hyperopes do not have normal vision.
>> Correct. BUT THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
> If you can see both far and near you are an emmetrope.
> If you can see near, but not far, you are a myope.
> If you can see far, but not near, you are a hyperope.
Duh.
> Carry myopia far enough and you can
> still focus on stuff an inch from your nose.
Duh, and irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that
'farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
> Carry hyperopia far enough and infinity
> isn't far enough away for you to focus.
Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that 'farsighted
people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
> The word 'hyperopia' is ambiguous. Can we leave it at that?
Nope, YOU were the one who brought that up, the OP used the
word farsighted and YOU made the stupid pig ignorant claim that
'farsighted people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
>> THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED FAR SIGHTED, BECAUSE
>> THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
>>> As hyperopes get older, they can accommodate less and
>>> less and it becomes harder and harder to focus close up.
>> Separate issue entirely to your original claim that they cant see anything
>> clearly without glasses. They can see things at a distance fine.
>>> Eventually NOTHING can be focused.
>> Wrong. Whatever is in focus with the lense relaxed
>> can be seen fine, and that is what is at a distance.
>>> I didn't need to wear glasses for reading until I was 38.
>> Irrelevant to your original claim that they cant see anything
>> clearly without glasses. They can see things at a distance fine.
>>> Now I need them for everything.
>> Then you dont have simple hyperopia.
> No, I don't. If I did, I'd need simple +3D and +5D lenses in order
> to see street signs at useful distances (like across the street). To
> read at normal distances, I need to add 2.25D to those numbers.
Irrelevant to your stupid pig ignorant claim that 'farsighted
people can't see ANYTHING clearly without glasses'
Keep desperately digging, you'll be out in china any day now.
Rod Speed
"Bill 2" <as...@asdf.com> wrote in message
news:nUNoe.42664$Ph4.1...@ursa-nb00s0.nbnet.nb.ca...
move leverage has been banned.
silver...@hotmail.com
The Real Bev wrote:
> >
> > But you can buy your glasses for $5 each while us nearsighted have to pay
> > $120 a pair for our corrective lenses.
>
> No you don't. If you aren't hung up on fashionable (read "expensive") frames
> you can get prescription glasses for half that (plus the exam, of course) by
> smart shopping.
<rant>
Ummmmm ... no. At least not if you're a high myope ... unless of
course you want to settle for coke bottle glasses. Last year I
"settled" for Nikon 4's because my Rx exceeded the maximum for Nikon
5's ... still cost me over $400 (not including frames). This year I'm
going for zeiss (the 4's are too damn thick and the 5's are again out
of the question) ... paying $650 for those (again not including
frames). Add about $150 for frames (not brand name) and $100 for the
eye exam ... grand total = ~ $900 (I won't even start on contact lenses
+ contact lens fitting fee ...). Sure it's my "fault" that I want the
thinnest lenses possible ... but I think most high myopes understand.
:S
<end rant>
The Real Bev
>
> "The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote:
> >
> > Chuck Olson wrote:
> >> The farsighted should not be so
> >> unhappy. Besides they can light a fire with their lenses, while the
> >> nearsighted will have to rub two sticks together a whole lot - - enjoy
> >> your fire, you farsighted fockers!.
> >
> > That doesn't work. Poke a hole in a dry log, put in some dry burnable
> > stuff, put a pointy stick in the hole and twirl it between your palms.
>
> Instead of your palms, fashion a bow with a stick and some string / string
> substitute, and use this. Much move leverage.
That's Lesson 2!
--
Cheers, Bev
**********************************************
"I've had a Lucas pacemaker for years and have
never experienced any prob
The Real Bev
>
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
> > > But you can buy your glasses for $5 each while us nearsighted have to pay
> > > $120 a pair for our corrective lenses.
> >
> > No you don't. If you aren't hung up on fashionable (read "expensive") frames
> > you can get prescription glasses for half that (plus the exam, of course) by
> > smart shopping.
>
> course you want to settle for coke bottle glasses. Last year I
> "settled" for Nikon 4's because my Rx exceeded the maximum for Nikon
> 5's ... still cost me over $400 (not including frames). This year I'm
> going for zeiss (the 4's are too damn thick and the 5's are again out
> of the question) ... paying $650 for those (again not including
> frames). Add about $150 for frames (not brand name) and $100 for the
> eye exam ... grand total = ~ $900 (I won't even start on contact lenses
> + contact lens fitting fee ...). Sure it's my "fault" that I want the
> thinnest lenses possible ... but I think most high myopes understand.
So these people have nothing you would find acceptable?
http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
http://www.optical4less.com/index.cgi?mode=pnormal
http://www.39dollarglasses.com/product_info/about_our_lenses.html
--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
To define recursion, we must first define recursion.
silver...@hotmail.com
Impossible to tell. I generally look for the smallest, roundest
possible frames (that look good on me, of course). This year I spent
five hours driving from optical store to optical store trying on frames
before I found the right ones. Crazy? Yes. Necessary? Yes.
Especially since I look horrible in most frames! I could never buy
them over the internet, no matter what the cost. ;) I suppose I could
find frames I like in a store and then search the internet for the same
ones ... but that would probably take me another five hours. :D
Dan Abel
<rod_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "The Real Bev" <bas...@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
> news:42A29477...@myrealbox.com...
> > Rod Speed wrote:
> >> Wrong. Most of them only need glasses when reading.
>
> > Those people have normal vision.
>
> Wrong. Those that dont need glasses at all have normal vision.
I've got to disagree with Bev and agree with Rod here. I define normal
vision as being able to see both near and far without correction.
> > Hyperopes do not have normal vision.
>
> Correct. BUT THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
>
> THATS WHY THEY ARE CALLED FAR SIGHTED, BECAUSE
> THEY CAN SEE THINGS AT A DISTANCE FINE.
My son is myopic, but only wears his glasses for driving. He can see at a
distance well enough for most things, even though he is technically
myopic. I used to be severely myopic. Did that mean that I could see
things up close just fine? No! I could not read without my glasses. The
farthest I could focus without correction was one inch. The nearest I
could focus was one inch. My depth of field (range of distances I could
see without significant blur) was about 1/4 of an inch. It is very
difficult to read a book with that kind of vision. You have to close one
eye and move the book back and forth in front of the other eye, because
you can't focus both on the middle of the line and the ends of the line at
the same time (moving your eye, obviously).
At least I could focus and see sharply at *some* distance. About .01% of
the time, it was useful to be able to see really tiny things clearly by
taking off my glasses and holding them an inch from one eye (had to close
the other eye, because obviously it wasn't possible to hold something
within one inch of both eyes, not to mention the mucle strain of crossing
the eyes so severely. It was like I had a built in high power magnifying
system! My wife is not so lucky. She is hyperopic, but cannot focus at
any distance. It's true that things are blurrier the closer they are, but
things are still blurry at infinity, and her drivers license shows the
restriction that she cannot drive without corrective lenses. It's true
that milder hyperopes can see at infinity without correction, and really
mild hyperopes can see middle distances without correction.
--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS
da...@sonic.net
Dr. Leukoma
retina. Therefore, either accommodation or a plus lens is required to
place the punctum remotum on the retina. If accommodation is no longer
possible, i.e. presbyopia, then only a plus lens will move the focus
onto the retina. Therefore, a farsighted person is only able to see
well at infinity when the amplitude of accommodation approximately
equals or exceeds the refractive error. I have had many patients with
a refractive error of +0.50 who could not read the 20/20 line on the
Snellen chart. That's why I say that at some point in life, a
farsighted person will perceive blur at any distance.
It would seem that such a statement is pretty straightforward and
irrefutable.
DrG
Dr. Leukoma
AsianMale wrote:
> Although it has not been proved that not wearing glasses prevents
> deterioration, it has been proved that they destroy your eyes. So just
> get a farsighted person and give them some minus lenses and then block
> out all their windows. They will be accomodating here and there and
> pretty soon their eyeball will grow so long they will become myopic.
> There's a great solution.
Where's the proof that eyeglasses destroy eyes, Asian boy? Oh, I
forgot. The proof is in your solipsistic young head. Living in a
house without windows is simply a metaphor for your mind.
DrG
The Real Bev
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > silver...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > > The Real Bev wrote:
> > >
> > > > > But you can buy your glasses for $5 each while us nearsighted have to pay
> > > > > $120 a pair for our corrective lenses.
> > > >
> > > > No you don't. If you aren't hung up on fashionable (read "expensive") frames
> > > > you can get prescription glasses for half that (plus the exam, of course) by
> > > > smart shopping.
> > >
> > > Ummmmm ... no. At least not if you're a high myope ... unless of
> > > course you want to settle for coke bottle glasses. Last year I
> > > "settled" for Nikon 4's because my Rx exceeded the maximum for Nikon
> > > 5's ... still cost me over $400 (not including frames). This year I'm
> > > going for zeiss (the 4's are too damn thick and the 5's are again out
> > > of the question) ... paying $650 for those (again not including
> > > frames). Add about $150 for frames (not brand name) and $100 for the
> > > eye exam ... grand total = ~ $900 (I won't even start on contact lenses
> > > + contact lens fitting fee ...). Sure it's my "fault" that I want the
> > > thinnest lenses possible ... but I think most high myopes understand.
> >
> > So these people have nothing you would find acceptable?
> >
> > http://zennioptical.com/cart/home.php
> > http://www.optical4less.com/index.cgi?mode=pnormal
> > http://www.39dollarglasses.com/product_info/about_our_lenses.html
>
> possible frames (that look good on me, of course). This year I spent
> five hours driving from optical store to optical store trying on frames
> before I found the right ones. Crazy? Yes. Necessary? Yes.
> Especially since I look horrible in most frames!
When I choose a frame I don't even look in the mirror until I have three that
are acceptably comfortable at the minimum price ($59 including frames around
here, +$20 for bifocals). I look better in ANY glasses, so I look in the
mirror to make sure I haven't chosen something that looks really stupid.
> I could never buy
> them over the internet, no matter what the cost. ;) I suppose I could
> find frames I like in a store and then search the internet for the same
> ones ... but that would probably take me another five hours. :D
In general, I think that's cheating if you take up any of the brick+mortar
person's time at all. I might buy super-light reading glasses from Zenni or
one of the others, but only if I was willing to toss them because they hurt or
prevent me from breathing through my 2mm nasal passages.
--
Cheers, Bev
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
"They redundantly repeated themselves over and over again
incessantly without end ad infinitum" -- ibid.
AsianMale
Suicide
AsianMale
> deterioration, it has been proved that they destroy your eyes.
>
>According to whom?
According to ME. Thanks to my caring eye doctors i can only see 4
inches in front of my face. I am pretty god damned sure this is not
genetic. Those of you who disagree do not see what I see.
AsianMale
worse eyesight. Women are more adapted to close work. Gays and women
both respond to testosterone the same, therefore being gay is genetic.
Therefore gays and women have worse vision than Nazis.
AsianMale
>fuzzy full moons. Actually, more like comets with two short stubby tails,
>each about 10 degrees off plumb.
Okay, not sure what you mean by "10 degrees off plumb", but... WAHHH
WAHHH WAHHHH!
You got this way yourself, the fact of the matter is that you love plus
lenses, while us myopes hate minues lenses. To you plus lenses have
been a drug that feels good, but to us myopes, minus lenses have been a
drug that doesn't feel good, but only gives us migraine headaches,
facial tension, shrunken images, and so much other bad stuff.
The Real Bev
> You got this way yourself, the fact of the matter is that you love plus
> lenses, while us myopes hate minues lenses. To you plus lenses have
> been a drug that feels good, but to us myopes, minus lenses have been a
> drug that doesn't feel good, but only gives us migraine headaches,
> facial tension, shrunken images, and so much other bad stuff.
I gave you the benefit of the doubt, but you're not only a troll, you're an
asshole.
--
Cheers,
Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
I've enjoyed just about as much of this as I can stand.
AsianMale
>prevent me from breathing through my 2mm nasal >passages.
I wish I had 2mm nostrils, instead I'm stuck with what this black girl
called "a nigger nose".
William Stacy
Oh no, not *the* infamous troll-hole again...
drfr...@gmail.com
>
Dan> I've got to disagree with Bev and agree with Rod here. I define
normal
> vision as being able to see both near and far without correction.
>
>
Dan, your definition is way too simplistic. Does a strab (somebody with
no binocularity but monocular va's of 20/20) have normal vision??
Or someone with a significant amount of hyperopia cranking out
his/her accommodation (as a result, severe eye strain) to achieve
20/20 va's declared normal vision?? Yes, that person is seeing
20/20 uncorrected but causing a lot of eye discomfort as a result.
frank
Stug
@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> Do you ever go on all these alternatives to myopia websites that say
> myopia makes your eyes get worse? They say that glasses make your eyes
> worse. They also claim that their eye exercises can cure ALL eye
> diseases.
>
> But what really makes me angry is when they have testimonials of people
> who are FARSIGHTED! What does that have to do with myopia reversal?
> Furthermore I have discovered that this so-called myopia, and
> astigmatism prevention/reversal are only possible for the slightly
> myopic.
>
> But seriously, why are these farsighted people so amazed that they
> "improved" their vision, when actually all they did was move their eyes
> in a more negative direction?
>
> Is their "improvement" supposed to impress us who are myopic?
>
> Seriously, what do farsighted people have to complain about?
> Farsighted people never have to worry about not being able to see the
> board, not being able to do their job, not getting more bulging eyes
> from negative lenses (when you take them off), not having to lose their
> glasses and be totally inefficient the whole day, not having staircase
> myopia.
>
> Farsighted people are God's gift, they are the lucky ones. I don't see
> why farsighted people are even concerned with vision exercises or
> vision "improvement" at all.
>
> Does anyone know why they are?
>
>
Why are you cross-posting this shit to a suicide methods newsgroup? Please
kindly piss off.
Fuck you very much
SG
--
REMOVE "diespamdie!!!" TO EMAIL
Dan Abel
drfr...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> Dan> I've got to disagree with Bev and agree with Rod here. I define
> normal
> > vision as being able to see both near and far without correction.
> >
> >
> Dan, your definition is way too simplistic.
That's what comes out of having a layperson trying to define technical
terms! We tend to see things in terms of what is at hand, rather than the
big picture.
Let's summarize this thread:
1. A possible troll stated that hyperopes have no reason to complain
about glasses because they can see just fine at distance.
2. Bev responded that hyperopes can't see *anything* at *any* distance
without correction.
3. A different possible troll responded that *most* <emphasis mine>
hyperopes only need glasses to see up close.
4. Bev responded that those people have normal vision.
5. I disagreed, but posted a response that was too simplistic. What I
perhaps *should* have responded was that I don't consider a non-presbyopic
hyperope who only needs glasses to see close, to have "normal vision".
Is that better, drfrank21? Do you consider Rod's statement that most
hyperopes only need glasses to see up close, to be true in your
experience?
drfr...@gmail.com
Dan, a good summary but only add that it was started by a troll, not
a possible troll. And it's impossible to state either way "whether most
hyperopes only need glasses for near" without taking into account the
actual amount of their hyperopic error. Thus most hyperopes with a +.50
D refractive error do not need any glasses while most (all) hyperopes
need a full time correction with a +5.00 D refractive error. So the op
troll was dead wrong with his assumption(s).
And then you add that people's definitions of "normal" can be totally
different. I've seen patients who have told me their vision is "fine"
and "normal" when in fact their vision is quite a bit less than 20/20
(as low as 20/200).
Conversely, I've had patients decry their vision was "terrible"
and they were seeing 20/15.
frank
AsianMale
troll was dead wrong with his assumption(s).
I was not wrong. I am never wrong. Hyperopes have better lives than
us. Haven't you read the things that say that people who wear
farsighted glasses have less tension, better blood pressure, less
headaches, less eye pain, less eye strain, etc. etc.?
Dr. Leukoma
several of us here.
DrG
ASIANMALE(age16)
ask the people, the doctors will lie.
Barbara Bomberger
>>Those people have normal vision.
>
>>Hyperopes do not have normal vision. As >hyperopes get older, they can
>>accommodate less and less and it becomes >harder and harder to focus close up.
>>Eventually NOTHING can be focused. I didn't >need to wear glasses for reading
>>until I was 38. Now I need them for >everything. If you don't, be grateful.
>
>WAH WAH WAH!!!! DOES BABY WANT A BOTTLE? You're right, I'll be
>grateful that I need glasses to do EVERYTHING, that, even with glasses
>I STILL can't have clear vision unless I put on my overprescribed minus
>lenses which will make the image MORE BLURRY. I cannot function
>without glasses! At least you can go out and look at the stars.
Definitely kill fill time, troll.............
And your also an idiot.
Dr Judy
news:1118208244.7...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Do you have a reference for that statement? I've never heard of a
correlation between hyperopia and hypertension. From my experience, I would
say that uncorrected hyperopes have more headaches, more eye pain and more
eye strain; I don't think there is any difference between corrected
hyperopes and corrected myopes.
Dr Judy
>