Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
The dilemma of not recognizing people far away
i am glad to see Nancy post a response. several times i started to respond to bifocal, and each time i cancelled the post feeling it would be best if Nancy addressed his post. The post i did make regarding diopters was an indirect response to bifocal. and, instead, Lou responded like it was addressed to him. Dang! i love forums. they so foster clear and concise communications.

personally, i think that Nancy's efforts have been, and continue to be, a huge inspiration to many (including me.) for some people, it appears to be easy to look at supposed shortcomings or failings of others (and themselves, too, i would bet). look instead at Nancy's tremendous successes. when she posts, i read her words very carefully because she has accomplished so much and continues to do so. she works diligently at recording her successes and setbacks to help the rest of us. i, for one, am indebted to her.

having said all that.... those of you who focus on the negative are missing so much joy. live in this moment. be aware of this moment. dance for joy at every success. be thankful for every setback. share each moment with those who will share the joy of that moment. live with joy and awareness of the gifts we have.

Nancy.... thank you!

be well,

Nancy Wrote:I have posted my current acuity and my original acuity when I started vision work in my signature line, since I get asked so often. Now I am getting attacked (it feels that way) for giving you numbers that you can't seem to accept! Someone sent me a private message asking me if my vision ever got as bad as it used to be (-10): talk about focusing on the negative!
That was me. Sorry about that.

Nancy Wrote:I am tempted to not say anything about my visual situation, but that won't help anyone. No, I am not 20/20 yet most of the time. Yet I have improved significantly from when I started, and do not wear glasses most of the time. It's as if some of you can't accept that it is possible to improve, and want to shoot me down, or blame me for "taking too long" and not being at 20/20 yet, or are telling me what strength glasses I should be wearing when you're not in my brain and seeing with my eyes! If you can discredit me, then you don't have to focus on your own vision practice, because maybe this is all a sham, or I'm just trying to drum up students or something.
My concern is that some people may be greatly overestimating their improvement. In my tween years, my eyesight seemed fine except when I tried to read something more than a few feet away. I suppose to some small degree I may have tensed up when I tried to read something and perhaps worsened my vision slightly, but in hindsight I certainly wasn't seeing things clearly in general. If I had tested my own vision, I would have probably memorized the chart, and I may even have become good enough at recognizing blurred letters to have an external test overestimate my acuity.

Nancy Wrote:Thanks for understanding. If you don't believe anything I write here, don't read my posts.
I think most of us believe that you're being honest, but maybe doubt whether you're being accurate.
may i suggest that you speak for yourself, Daniel. I have no reason to doubt Nancy's honesty or accuracy. You certainly do not speak for me. and, lacking input from all others for whom you presume to speak, i do not see how you can make any claim on behalf of "most" ... or any for that matter.

be well,

Daniel wrote:
Quote:I think most of us believe that you're being honest, but maybe doubt whether you're being accurate.
Daniel, you might as well call me a liar! I measure my vision on the eyechart almost every day and do not post inaccurate numbers. If you think that my vision is "blur interpretation" and not true seeing (whatever you think that is), go ahead and think that, but please do not assume everyone else agrees with you.

Although I believe you mean well, I am getting tired of using my time and my words to defend myself against your disbelief. It seems every post of yours I answer, or every personal message, you just come back with another doubt that I could possibly have improved as much I say I have. I'm starting to feel sorry for you! If you are as hard on yourself and your own vision improvement efforts as you are on me, I don't wonder that you haven't seen much progress yet. I mean this caringly, not with accusation, believe me. Don't be so hard on me, or on yourself, and look for the good in the situation (and in other people). I won't be answering any more PMs from you, by the way, and I hope you understand. If you have a question you can post it here. Take care.
OK, I will only speak for myself. Nancy, I don't doubt your honesty here. I don't think that you're lying about anything; after all, a fraud would be unlikely to admit to using glasses at all. What I can't help but wonder, especially in light of what you said about wearing -4 glasses, is whether you're accurately measuring your own progress. But I guess there's no point in going on about this.
Daniel, I feel exactly as you do about this.
It just doesn't make sense that Nancy would use minus four glasses for night driving,and still only have as she stated aprox. 20/35 vision,and then have 20/45 uncorrected in other conditions.
Much of her conversation about her vision at her web site indicates that she has problems with distant vision,and has also mentioned holding near work very close.
I agree that many times at this site we see people talking about clear flashes while using the snellen chart,as though they have that vision all the time,when indeed they do not.
A true improvement in vision would be when the particular line on the snellen chart can be read consistently,weather one is tired,or rested.stressed,or not stressed.anxious,or not anxious,good lighting,or poor lighting.
I also am not saying that she is lying.
Bifocal Wrote:A true improvement in vision would be when the particular line on the snellen chart can be read consistently,weather one is tired,or rested.stressed,or not stressed.anxious,or not anxious,good lighting,or poor lighting..

Where did you get this idea from? I refer you to Chapter 7 of Bates' Perfect Eyesight without glasses. <!-- m --><a class="postlink" href=""> ... on-eye.php</a><!-- m -->

I quote (my emphasis):
"During thirty years devoted to the study of refraction, I have found few people who could maintain perfect sight for more than a few minutes at a time, even under the most favorable conditions; and often I have seen the refraction change half a dozen times or more in a second, the variations ranging all the way from twenty diopters of myopia to normal. Similarly I have found no eyes with continuous or unchanging errors of refraction, all persons with errors of refraction having, at frequent intervals during the day and night, moments of normal vision, when their myopia, hypermetropia, or astigmatism, wholly disappears. The form of the error also changes, myopia even changing into hypermetropia, and one form of astigmatism into another."

I understand that Nancy does not have perfect vision, but if I don't think "true improvement" (whatever that is) means that you have to see 20/20 in all conditions. Even if this is what you believe, I don't understand why we have to draw a line here. If you start with 20/400 vision (hypothetically) in all conditions, and you improve so that your vision is 20/20 "only" when you happen to be eating and 20/400 in all other situations, is that not an improvement? I would be thrilled. The idea of consistently perfect vision would also mean that one should be able to use the computer for 24 hours a day with no repercussions. It might be possible, but how many people with perfect vision do you think can claim to do this?

On the other hand, I do agree with what you said in certain situations. Obviously, someone who gets a clear flash of 20/20 and then reverts back to 20/200 cannot really say that he/she has 20/20 vision. And of course, any temporary improvement that might be obtained from squinting and the like also doesn't count. But I think that it is important to treat vision on a situation-by-situation basis. Optimums and pessimums can play a large role in vision.
since we are discussing improvements.....
Daniel, you've been on the forum here since 2005.... what kind of success/improvement have you had?
Bifocal, you've been here since 2006... same question?

personally, while it is good to see the successes of others, the one with which i am most concerned is my own. because it is my own eyes that i must use. nobody else can use them for me, and i can use no others. what another person does or does not see is important to that person, but it does not impact my own vision.

both of you have, for all intents and purposes, have attacked Nancy. perhaps you stopped just short of calling her a liar, perhaps you have used a euphemism rather than actually calling her a liar. or perhaps you have called her a liar, and then said, "I'm not saying she is a liar, but...." frankly, it is completely inappropriate. if you choose not to believe her, that is your choice. Don't believe her... and go away. if you feel the need to say, "I win! She's a fibber!" then declare your victory and go away.

the level of her acuity is her level of acuity. yours is yours. use your eyes to see and do not worry what her eyes are doing or how she interprets or reports it.

her successes are hers. you can share in the joy of her accomplishments.... or you can attempt to malign her. your choice says a lot about you as a person.

be well,

Pikachu and Jim, thanks for defending me, and Pikachu thank you especially for the Bates quote. It's a common mistake to believe that vision once improved never declines, even momentarily. The human body, and vision particularly, are alive and dynamic, and the state of health can fluctuate a lot. Also, I sense an underlying theme of perfectionism here, which I recognize because I have a lot of this myself. It took me a long time to celebrate the little successes in my vision improvement, or at first even to recognize them, because I didn't have "perfect vision" (whatever that is: moons of Jupiter?) yet. I am proud of what I have accomplished so far with my vision, and look forward to more improvement. I know this may not come in any particular category I expect so I'm just doing the work every day and staying open, noticing what shows up and being grateful for it. I wish all of you continued improvement with your own vision, whether you believe in my numbers or not!
I think this discussion is pointless. Nancy measures her vision reading certain line on the snellen chart. An optometrist or an eye doctor will measure the best prescription for you to see as sharp as possible the 20/20 line. On one side seeing the line is the most important thing, at the other is seeing sharply the 20/20 line.

Different stuff. The light conditions affects tremendously the ability to read the snellen chart.

The fact is, its really a incredible improvement from -10 to - 4.
lfernand Wrote:The fact is, its really a incredible improvement from -10 to - 4.
If true and accurate, yes it is. Please note that I defended Nancy when someone made an issue out of her not being 20/20 after more than 10 years.
Daniel, in my discussions with you, I have gotten the sense that you are a very rational person, but I don't understand why you have to qualify statements with "if ___ were true". From a purely objective standpoint, there is nothing offensive in that statement, but it can be misinterpreted quite easily, and at least from my point of view, I don't see what extra insight it provides. In my opinion, the "if ___ were true" qualifier is implicit in anything that is said or written. We can never really know for sure whether someone is telling the truth, so it is natural just to leave out the qualifier in our statements. Otherwise, it sounds like there is doubt and skepticism involved.

I realize that I'm going quite off-topic with this statement, but in light of the fact that this is an ONLINE forum, it's worth remembering that words alone can be misinterpreted without the aid of body language, so we should try to avoid wording that might be misconstrued as offensive language.
If you are interested in my visual history,please see the thread titled, Farsightedness. I had documented my history over a three year period,beginning with my farsighted condition that required me to wear bifocals.
I found that the Bates system did not work,so began wearing minus lenses,that not only eliminated my farsightedness,but took me into myopia,that eventually went as high as minus 4.00.
I then began a reducing the minus over a period of time,and have been totally glasses free for over three years now.
My far vision is consistently 20/20 under all lighting conditions,all stress,and anxiety conditions,and even if I am tired.
I also do not wear reading glasses.
Thank you, Bifocal. If all you have posted is true and accurate, then it is impressive. Your statement of consistent 20/20 is it odds with Dr. Bates' findings, but I suppose there could be some degree of inaccuracy in either your typing or in your reported acuity.

Certainly, we have no reason to doubt your honesty, but perhaps your recall is euphemistically optimistic and, as a result, tending toward unintentional inaccuracy.

I am sure you understand exactly what I am saying, having said so yourself so recently in response to another's shared achievements.

Be well,


Perfect Sight Without Glasses free download