Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- From: odtobe <ODtobe@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 27 Apr 2007 10:16:32 -0700
On Apr 26, 9:06 pm, p.clar...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
On Apr 26, 9:31 pm, "otisbr...@xxxxxx" <otisbr...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In fact, during your exam you might have developed
muscle-spasm myopia, which I am told gradually
reduces over time.
indeed! anything that you say that has any ring of validity to it
would have to be something you have been told since your training is
nil and your experience is even worse. go away old troll.
Why would you give this persone the SE? They are not a very good
candidate. The cyl power is equal to or greater than the sphere power!
They will most likely not like this RX. Also with such little cyl why
not Rx it? Edge thickness will not be a problem, and the tolorances
for detectable axis change on this little amount of cyl are rather
large, maening even if you get the cyl axis within about 15-20 degrees
they will be seeing much better than with the spherical eqiv.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- From: otisbrown@xxxxxx
- Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- References:
- Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- From: otisbrown@xxxxxx
- Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- From: otisbrown@xxxxxx
- Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- From: p . clarkii
- Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- Prev by Date: Re: toric prescription tweak
- Next by Date: Re: Boston EO greasy surface
- Previous by thread: Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- Next by thread: Re: Converting "Script" to pure Spherical Equivalent
- Index(es):