| Ragnar 2006-09-29, 2:35 am |
| Ace.. you must be smoking crack if you seriously believe that
Basslapper is at all interested in your stupid opinions.
BTW.. you are still completely wrong about presbyopia.
One other thing you mention which your are also completely wrong about
is monovision. People tend to love monovision. I personally don't
think I would like monovision.... but the people I know of who have
had it done love it.
Frankly, until you have experienced it.. you don't really know what
you are talking about..and you should not attempt to even offer an
opinion. I know of eye doctors who have perfect vision.. which for
them is actually not good.. because they have no first hand experience
with what it is like to be dependant upon glasses or to wear contact
lenses.
It doesn't seem to matter toyou that you have no experience other than
glasses.. yet you attempt to post as if you think you know what you
are talking about.
One example I can think of that illustrates the value of experience is
Glenn's refractive surgery. The quality of his posts increased quite
a bit after he had his surgery. He didn't necessarily change his
opinions.. but he now expresses his opinions in a far more realistic
way without dwelling upon trivial points that are not very relevant.
In short.. you remind me of my grandmother who has never driven a car
in her life.. yet she thinks she is the world's expert about driving.
On 28 Sep 2006 15:56:06 -0700, "Ace" <acemanvx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>Bassslapper said:
>
>
>I understand.
>
>
>
>
>That must have weighed in your decision for lasik.
>
>
>
>
>That would be impossible because of presbyopia. Everyone who isnt
>myopic will need
>a device to enable them to see clear from near. Monovision itself is a
>tradeoff and I personally hate it. Myopia is both good and bad, good in
>you see from near, bad in you blur from distance.
>
>
>
>
>You arent "blind" without glasses. Youll see less but enough that youll
>escape any disaster that doesnt require you to read tiny text or see
>tiny details from a mile away. Ive broke my glasses before, just fell
>back on my spare pair and ordered a new one. Ive even forgotten my
>glasses on rare occasions and I was able to get around fairly well.
>Perhaps I left my glasses at home when my dad drove us somewhere. I see
>far worse than you do and I could easily function in just about any
>emergency.
>
>
>
>
>I can see my digital clock too without even squinting, granted its very
>blurry. I always wear glasses for TV and driving. I see fine for
>reading and eating without glasses(much better without than with!) If
>you tolerated contacts, they would not bother you one bit except the
>part of inserting/removing them. Ive tried contacts and they dry my
>eyes and give a general achiness to my eyes. I havent really noticed
>the increased field of vision. The thing I do notice is no minification
>and no weight on my ears and nose. You must not do much reading. Dont
>forget youll see everything blurry from near which will get worse as
>your presbyopia worsens. You may need readers for brushing your teeth,
>eating meals, using the computer, telling time on your watch, seeing
>someone's face clearly at closer range, everything within about 5 feet
>will be blurry. I have simulated this with my old -5.5 glasses(am now
>-4.5 due to NVI) and things to about 3 feet were blurry. I placed +1
>readers over -5.5 glasses and was amazed to see all the details in the
>table 3 feet away from me! Near vision may be less important than
>distance for you, but for me, near is much more important. When I get
>orthoK, I wont mind being -1 to -2 and probably, ill end up there
>anyway as my prescription is a little high for a full correction(will
>be getting an oversized zone) which I dont care in the least. Ill take
>glasses for driving/movies anyday over reading, eating, computers,
>everything nearby.
>
>
>
>
>There was PRK, a popular alternative, especially for low(er) myopes
>like you. Even intacs would have worked and they are considerabily
>safer and also reversable via extraction. You may read about them, do a
>google search. There also will be other options in the future such as
>epithelial thinning, myopic CK, long lasting orthoK, etc. Only you can
>decide if the risks are worth it. From what I know about lasik, I
>consider it far too risky. I will be trying orthoK once I have the
>money for it(you were a success and gave up after losing a lens rather
>than buying another) OrthoK sounds simple enough and far less of a
>hassle than glasses. What would *you* have done if your lasik didnt go
>well? What if complications occur in the future? How would you deal
>with it?
>
>
>
>
>
>This is a risk I refuse to take. I am much more tolerant of glasses
>than you are and there is orthoK for me to try. I will have a spare
>lens for each eye in case of breakage/losage. I can and will deal with
>the very slight hassles of inserting, sleeping and removing them every
>other night. If for some unlikley reason id rather wear glasses because
>orthoK didnt satisfy me, ill stick with glasses till something better
>and safer comes out in the future as an alternative or replacement to
>lasik.
>
>How long ago exactly did you get lasik? Has it been 3 months yet? What
>was your exact prescription before lasik in each eye? You said about
>-2.5 but didnt know for sure. What is your prescription now and are you
>20/20 or how close?
>
>Thanks sir for your time reading and replying! Keep in touch on the
>progress of your lasik. Good luck!
|