Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 26 to 50 of 50

Thread: No identifying marks...

  1. #26
    Master OptiBoarder
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Ontario, Canada
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    982
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    The absence of standardized reference marks would make it impossible to fit the lens properly, i.e. verify the fitting cross position to the ordered parameters and to the proper position in front of the eyes, verify Rx prism, unwanted prism, and the presence and degree of prism thinning (essential for single lens replacements).
    I'm pretty sure Heather is only talking about the logo. You absolutely need the two circles. As long as you have proper documentation as to what the lens is on the patient's file, you can do everything with those two marks. You don't need the add stamped, you don't need the logo. The only problem I can see with having a PAL stamped like this is SOMEONE ELSE trying to figure out what the heck the patient has.

  2. #27
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Now I See's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    free-n-clear!
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,864
    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralKnight View Post
    I'm pretty sure Heather is only talking about the logo. You absolutely need the two circles. As long as you have proper documentation as to what the lens is on the patient's file, you can do everything with those two marks. You don't need the add stamped, you don't need the logo. The only problem I can see with having a PAL stamped like this is SOMEONE ELSE trying to figure out what the heck the patient has.
    Thank you, AdmiralKnight! :cheers:
    ___________________________________________

  3. #28
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by AdmiralKnight View Post
    I'm pretty sure Heather is only talking about the logo.
    Okay.

    The only problem I can see with having a PAL stamped like this is SOMEONE ELSE trying to figure out what the heck the patient has.
    That's a problem for sure. Pretty hard to troubleshoot a lens when you're blind to the lens specs. For instance, a client complains of poor distance VA, and you find that the reference marks are level with th pupil. Knowing that most PALs have a 4mm drop you might think that the lenses were fit too high, problem solved! Well, not so fast- Seiko's lenses have the fitting cross even with the 180 line so these lenses were fit properly. The problem lies elsewhere.

    The last thing I want to see is a whole flock of no-name PALs floating around the marketplace. I want/need more information, not less! Look at the information available on a Rodenstock PAL- lens design, material, Add power, base curve, etc. Carl Zeiss, Shamir, and others, show all of the above except base curve. These companies want you to know that what you get is what you ordered, and they're proud of it. I support these companies, and you should too, Logo and all.
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  4. #29
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    The last thing I want to see is a whole flock of no-name PALs floating around the marketplace. I want/need more information, not less! Look at the information available on a Rodenstock PAL- lens design, material, Add power, base curve, etc. Carl Zeiss, Shamir, and others, show all of the above except base curve. These companies want you to know that what you get is what you ordered, and they're proud of it. I support these companies, and you should too, Logo and all.
    For the record, I disagree wholeheartedly, completely, and without reservation.
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  5. #30
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    For the record, I disagree wholeheartedly, completely, and without reservation.
    Well, that doesn't leave much wiggle room on your end of the discussion.

    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    The lab in Dallas that I use for my freeform said they would RATHER make the lenses without the markings.
    Why do you think that is?

    That's how I like mine- pristine lenses without the (sometimes) annoying marks. Haven't had a customer complain, yet. Most of them didn't realize there were marks there before, or didn't care if they were there now, or were happy that there were no marks now.
    Why is it better for the optician and client to have no "marks" on the lenses?

    They said they normally still mark the lenses because several of their customers "want to be able to check the seg height".
    Do you feel that "checking the seg height" is irrelevant when dispensing multifocal lenses?

    Personally, I've had no problems, and prefer them unmarked.
    Do you mean without the reference symbols/circles that describe the 180 line, or do you mean with the reference circles but nothing else?

    The OP said it was a personel decision, and you say you prefer your PALs unmarked. Can you elaborate?
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  6. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Only City in the World built over a Volcano
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    12,996
    For those who desire pristine lenses, there is the alternative of buying the needed equipment and making your own.

    Chip

  7. #32
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Well, that doesn't leave much wiggle room on your end of the discussion.

    Why do you think that is?

    Why is it better for the optician and client to have no "marks" on the lenses?

    Do you feel that "checking the seg height" is irrelevant when dispensing multifocal lenses?

    Do you mean without the reference symbols/circles that describe the 180 line, or do you mean with the reference circles but nothing else?

    The OP said it was a personel decision, and you say you prefer your PALs unmarked. Can you elaborate?
    1. No wiggle room. Branding of a product does not make the product better. Standing behind it doesn't make it better. The product is either great, mediocre, or bad- and marketing and warranties cannot change that.
    2. No marking means cleaner lenses, one less step in the process, one less chance for breakage. Single vision lenses are not branded- or at least not sold to the consumer that way. MOST consumers are not brand-conscious. Just try it the next time someone says "I want Varilux". Ask them if they mean the brand or the type of lens, and you will find that the over-whelming majority of people will say "I just don't want lines".
    3. Same as #2
    4. You can check the seg height without laser marks if you know what you're doing. If your lab knows how to make glasses, then there is no problem, generally. When there is, you address it. Just like you do now.
    5. Same as #2

    See, even with no wiggle room, there can still be discussion. You can even point out where I am wrong, then I can respond, and the discussion can continue.:cheers:
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  8. #33
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    1.Branding of a product does not make the product better.
    Agreed, but branding for branding's sake is not the issue, for me at least.

    Standing behind it doesn't make it better.
    Agreed, but excellence in optics will always get my support.

    The product is either great, mediocre, or bad- and marketing and warranties cannot change that.
    Yep.

    2. No marking means cleaner lenses, one less step in the process, one less chance for breakage. Single vision lenses are not branded- or at least not sold to the consumer that way. MOST consumers are not brand-conscious. Just try it the next time someone says "I want Varilux". Ask them if they mean the brand or the type of lens, and you will find that the over-whelming majority of people will say "I just don't want lines".
    I don't see the advantage of only using two reference circles. You do accept the fact that there must be two reference circles, and that to verify the fit you must know the lens design to determine the drop (distance from the cross to the PRP)?

    3. Same as #2
    Again, how is it better to have less information on the lens? Besides the reference marks, I'd like the design, BC, material, Add, and for position of wear lenses, the wearer's vertex distance, and the dihedral/panto angles.

    4. You can check the seg height without laser marks if you know what you're doing.
    Do you mean without any reference marks? Then the answer is no, you can't verify the proper lens position in front of the eyes without standardized reference marks and some knowledge about the lens design.

    If your lab knows how to make glasses, then there is no problem, generally. When there is, you address it. Just like you do now.
    All labs make mistakes. All opticians make mistakes. The bggest mistake of all is to let the mistake leave the office.

    5. Same as #2
    You lost me.

    See, even with no wiggle room, there can still be discussion. You can even point out where I am wrong, then I can respond, and the discussion can continue.:cheers:
    Done.

    One possiblity is to have the drop added to the reference circle. That way we can be assured proper vertical position. I still think that the Add power needs to be engraved so that we can be sure that the power is the same in both eyes when the frame cuts off some of the corridor.

    So, two reference marks with a number to designate the drop would be an absolute minimum to assure proper lens positioning.
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  9. #34
    Bad address email on file donovanbaldwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hurst, TX
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    48
    Just read the whole post from Heather's opening remarks to here. No need for a second cup of coffee today! The witty repartee and high levels of discussion got my blood running. It's better than watching John McEnroe perform open heart surgery with an inept nurse for an assistant.

    Have a great day.

    On second thought, I think I will have that second cup of coffee.

    HEY! BARTENDER!

    Have a great day once the adrenalin leaves your systems.

    Don

  10. #35
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Agreed, but branding for branding's sake is not the issue, for me at least.

    Agreed, but excellence in optics will always get my support.

    Yep.

    I don't see the advantage of only using two reference circles. You do accept the fact that there must be two reference circles, and that to verify the fit you must know the lens design to determine the drop (distance from the cross to the PRP)?

    Again, how is it better to have less information on the lens? Besides the reference marks, I'd like the design, BC, material, Add, and for position of wear lenses, the wearer's vertex distance, and the dihedral/panto angles.

    Do you mean without any reference marks? Then the answer is no, you can't verify the proper lens position in front of the eyes without standardized reference marks and some knowledge about the lens design.

    All labs make mistakes. All opticians make mistakes. The bggest mistake of all is to let the mistake leave the office.

    You lost me.

    Done.

    One possiblity is to have the drop added to the reference circle. That way we can be assured proper vertical position. I still think that the Add power needs to be engraved so that we can be sure that the power is the same in both eyes when the frame cuts off some of the corridor.

    So, two reference marks with a number to designate the drop would be an absolute minimum to assure proper lens positioning.
    So, you agree with me on several points. You are, however, wrong about a couple of things:
    1. I DO NOT accept the "fact" that there must be two reference circles. I do agree that you must have some knowledge about the lens you are working with in order to dispense it. If you know your lens, it is entirely possible to check the fit without any reference marks- depending on the lens you are dispensing.
    2. You can write anything you want on a lens, but it doesn't make it a better product. My question to you is why do you want all that stuff on your progressive lens? If you are logical at all, you must demand the same info on FTs, SVs, planos, Trifocals- all lenses. Why stop with PALs? Let's also mandate that the lens contain also the lab's logo, the initials of the dispenser, the prescribing doctor's license number, and the patient's phone number in case the eyeglasses are misplaced.
    3. Yes, you can verify without marks, but you have to know what you're working with. (This sounds a lot like answer number two....)

    See how fun this is? (For those who are not used to this kind of thing, it's called a civilised discussion between two people who disagree.)
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  11. #36
    Bad address email on file donovanbaldwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hurst, TX
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    48
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    ...it's called a civilised discussion between two people who disagree.)
    You disagree? I missed that part.

    Where the heck DID I leave that coffee cup?

    Have a great day.

    Don

  12. #37
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by donovanbaldwin View Post
    You disagree? I missed that part.

    Where the heck DID I leave that coffee cup?

    Have a great day.

    Don
    That's too funny! (At first there was much disagreement, now I just have to convince him that marks are unnecessary. Then the transformation will be complete.;))
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  13. #38
    Master OptiBoarder OptiBoard Silver Supporter Now I See's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    free-n-clear!
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    1,864
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    That's too funny! (At first there was much disagreement, now I just have to convince him that marks are unnecessary. Then the transformation will be complete.;))
    muuuwaaahhh-ha-ha-ha! (**said while rubbing hands together**) :D
    ___________________________________________

  14. #39
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    So, you agree with me on several points. You are, however, wrong about a couple of things:
    2. You can write anything you want on a lens, but it doesn't make it a better product. My question to you is why do you want all that stuff on your progressive lens? If you are logical at all, you must demand the same info on FTs, SVs, planos, Trifocals- all lenses. Why stop with PALs? Let's also mandate that the lens contain also the lab's logo, the initials of the dispenser, the prescribing doctor's license number, and the patient's phone number in case the eyeglasses are misplaced.
    Just for aspheric/atoric lenses. The aspheric pole and optical center should be coincident, unless there's prescribed prism. In other words, on the horizontal merdian, the aspheric pole and optical center should align with the pupil. Many, if not most aspheric lenses have reference circles for this reason.
    1. I DO NOT accept the "fact" that there must be two reference circles. I do agree that you must have some knowledge about the lens you are working with in order to dispense it. If you know your lens, it is entirely possible to check the fit without any reference marks- depending on the lens you are dispensing.
    Rx is +.50 sph Add +2.25 OU. PD 33/33 20 high. Lens is a no-name progressive without reference marks. Powers and unwanted prism are within Z80.1-2005 standards. You (and only you) know that the drop is 4mm. Explain how you determine the fitting cross position using standard equipment found in all optical shops. Use of advanced measuring devices like http://www.rotlex.com/class.asp are not allowed.
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  15. #40
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Just for aspheric/atoric lenses. The aspheric pole and optical center should be coincident, unless there's prescribed prism. In other words, on the horizontal merdian, the aspheric pole and optical center should align with the pupil. Many, if not most aspheric lenses have reference circles for this reason.
    Rx is +.50 sph Add +2.25 OU. PD 33/33 20 high. Lens is a no-name progressive without reference marks. Powers and unwanted prism are within Z80.1-2005 standards. You (and only you) know that the drop is 4mm. Explain how you determine the fitting cross position using standard equipment found in all optical shops. Use of advanced measuring devices like http://www.rotlex.com/class.asp are not allowed.
    1. It would be some, not many or most aspherics have reference circles- most do not- the overwhelming majority do not.
    2. We determined already that knowledge of the type of lens would have to be known to determine correct fitting, and it was my assumption that we were discussing ONLY digital PALs since that is where this thread began. (So, one must know the lens one is dealing with in order to answer the question intelligently.) Take the Seiko Succeed as an example. It has a zero drop, and the OC should be at the fitting height unless prism is prescribed. Mark the OC and visually check where the progression begins, and the two should coincide. With your imaginary lens, it could be the same, but it would depend on the lens design. Some that I use are a 4 drop, and the process is the same as with the Seiko, the difference being that the OC will be 4mm above the start of progression on one design, and 2mm above on the other design. Not all digital PALs are the same, so not all could be checked that way. (Pretty sure you cannot do that with the Autograph II, for instance.) It takes some knowledge and learning (and trusting your lab to be accurate with that knowledge they are providing you with) in order to do this, but it can be done. One remake so far, and that was my fault in placing the seg too high. So, either I am right, or REALLY lucky.
    3. Why can I not use a mapper? They're not that expensive.
    4. I could get a map from the lab.
    5. Some auto lensometers have a mapping feature (Visionix), and they're cheaper than a mapper and could easily found in a shop since they are the same $$ as any other simliar device. (That would be the easiest way to answer your question, but I didn't think you would let me use it...:bbg:)
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  16. #41
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    Mark the OC...
    Therein lies the problem. Let's say the lens is produced with minimal levels of unwanted prism, about .2^ per lens in or out. Using the +.50 DS example, if you align the fitting cross with the OC, the lens position will be off by 4mm per lens. The same problem occurs on the vertical meridian. It gets even murkier with presribed prism, especially with the stronger minus or plus powers, because there is no prism reference point, hence no way to verify if the prism is correct as prescribed. Like Georg Mayer said at the beginning of the thread, "Any Progressiv without marking would be for the bin".
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  17. #42
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the America
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    2. No marking means cleaner lenses, one less step in the process, one less chance for breakage (emphasis mine).
    So that's what's causing breakage...

  18. #43
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    Therein lies the problem. Let's say the lens is produced with minimal levels of unwanted prism, about .2^ per lens in or out. Using the +.50 DS example, if you align the fitting cross with the OC, the lens position will be off by 4mm per lens. The same problem occurs on the vertical meridian. It gets even murkier with presribed prism, especially with the stronger minus or plus powers, because there is no prism reference point, hence no way to verify if the prism is correct as prescribed. Like Georg Mayer said at the beginning of the thread, "Any Progressiv without marking would be for the bin".
    This is called a straw-man argument: create a scenario that you've never seen, and call it the standard. You obviously have no (or little) experience with good digitally created lenses. We should have established that from the beginning. I have been using Digital PALs for over a year, and have not seen one yet as you describe. Most of mine came in with the reference points marked (with ink) and could be verified that way. Removal of the marks did not change anything, they could still be verified as I described. You are still thinking about traditional lenses simply produced backside, or traditional lenses in general. I think here is where we'll have to depart, since we are trying to compare two completely different animals. The best thing here is to let Heather find a place to give her what she wants, I'll continue to get what I want, and you can continue to want more marks on lenses, but settle for what you currently get. Not everyone will get new technology, not everyone will trust it. I will, sounds like you won't. We've reached an impasse.
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  19. #44
    One eye sees, the other feels OptiBoard Silver Supporter
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    Wauwatosa Wi
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    5,458
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    This is called a straw-man argument: create a scenario that you've never seen, and call it the standard.
    If you're saying that there is zero prism at the PRP, I would say that would be rather difficult to achieve. But it's moot because without reference marks there is no PRP per se. Moreover, software that compensates for position of wear may introduce prism if there is any degree of face-form. We also need to keep the horizontal axis of the progressive optics within plus or minus two degrees; difficult to do without reference marks using only a lensometer. Those are some of the reasons we can't get acceptable results when using the optical center for determining the position of the progressive optics.

    I would strongly recommend that dispensing opticians not purchase and sell any PAL that does not have industry standard reference marks.
    Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. - Richard P. Feynman

    Experience is the hardest teacher. She gives the test before the lesson.



  20. #45
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Robert Martellaro View Post
    If you're saying that there is zero prism at the PRP, I would say that would be rather difficult to achieve. But it's moot because without reference marks there is no PRP per se. Moreover, software that compensates for position of wear may introduce prism if there is any degree of face-form. We also need to keep the horizontal axis of the progressive optics within plus or minus two degrees; difficult to do without reference marks using only a lensometer. Those are some of the reasons we can't get acceptable results when using the optical center for determining the position of the progressive optics.

    I would strongly recommend that dispensing opticians not purchase and sell any PAL that does not have industry standard reference marks.
    (Emphasis mine)
    1. Difficult does not mean impossible.
    2. May= straw-man argument.
    3. Difficult still does not mean impossible.

    There are many out there who SHOULD take your advice. For those willing to learn, adapt to changes, and accept new technology, I strongly recommend that you start asking questions, pushing the envelope, experimenting with different lenses, and purchase and sell any PAL (or other lens) that you are comfortable with, regardless of what tag it has on it.

    Acceptance of status quo is not an option for anyone wanting to grow. If you're not growing, you're dying.


    (Robert, thanks for the conversation.)
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  21. #46
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the America
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    104
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    1. Difficult does not mean impossible.
    No, but difficult means dollars.
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    2. May= straw-man argument.
    You do not understand the term "straw-man argument."
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    3. Difficult still does not mean impossible.
    Let's just guess PD's based on shoe size from now on--after all, difficult doesn't mean impossible.

    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    There are many out there who SHOULD take your advice.
    Yes, everyone.
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    For those willing to learn, adapt to changes, and accept new technology
    New technology, like PALs with no markings? That's a quantum leap!
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    I strongly recommend that you start asking questions
    Okay, what are you smoking?
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    pushing the envelope
    And thinking outside the box?
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    experimenting with different lenses
    Haven't tried that but it's on my to-do list
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    and purchase and sell any PAL (or other lens) that you are comfortable with, regardless of what tag it has on it.
    And regardless of whether or not it creates a huge hassle for my patients, staff, and anyone else who ever has to evaluate the lens...As long as I'm comfortable, go for it!
    Quote Originally Posted by hipoptical View Post
    Acceptance of status quo is not an option for anyone wanting to grow. If you're not growing, you're dying.
    Thanks for the inspiration, Dead Poet's Society. Until I read your comment I was just wasting my life away.
    Sorry to be a bit of a prick on this one, but this has to be the most bizarre topic I've seen on Optiboard. To be concerned about helpful manufacturer's marks on progressives...Wow. Just wow.

  22. #47
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Borysko View Post
    Sorry to be a bit of a prick on this one, but this has to be the most bizarre topic I've seen on Optiboard. To be concerned about helpful manufacturer's marks on progressives...Wow. Just wow.
    I didn't start this, "Robert" did. I'm not the one so concerned and unsure of my own abilities. You two guys should really just let this go, I'm a little bored with trying to answer questions you've already made up your minds about. Conversations are useful until they get personal, so I don't appreciate your comments, and your "apology" is neither genuine nor accepted.
    Using the term "may" in a discussion like this is without merit or basis, and is therefore like making a man out of straw: looks similar to something real, but is full of nothing. I do understand the term. Please stick to writing funny things.
    I think it's a bit amusing that you and your brother Robert are picking on me for trying to help someone find exactly what she requested. She seems to be happy, but you are moving towards personal attacks on me? If you don't like it, then just say you would never use these products. Getting personal like you did just showed your true colors.
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

  23. #48
    OptiBoard Professional
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    In the America
    Occupation
    Dispensing Optician
    Posts
    104
    No one personally attacked you. It was you who insulted everyone here by offering your "enlightened" (funny coming from someone who quotes C.S. Lewis in their signature) view of the world as an alternative to our mindless acceptance of the status quo.
    If you just want to helpfully answer questions, PM the original questioner. It's called a forum for a reason, and while Optiboard endeavors to discourage any pointed disagreement or display of wit, it's thus far still technically a forum of sorts and as such expects of the user an understanding that any ideas put forth may be challenged.
    Having said that, you seem quite sharp, polite, and reasonable; and if indeed I've given the impression that I've something against you personally I hope to disabuse you of that notion with my sincere wish that no matter what the topic we will argue ideas with the vehemence due a worthy challenger.

  24. #49
    Bad address email on file donovanbaldwin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Hurst, TX
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    48
    “You must not, when you have gained a victory, use any triumphing or insulting expression, nor show too much pleasure ; but endeavor to console your adversary, and make him less dissatisfied with himself by every kind and civil expression, that may be”
    -Benjamin Franklin

  25. #50
    Professional Rabble-Rouser hipoptical's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    Texas
    Occupation
    Optical Laboratory Technician
    Posts
    499
    Quote Originally Posted by Borysko View Post
    No one personally attacked you. It was you who insulted everyone here by offering your "enlightened" (funny coming from someone who quotes C.S. Lewis in their signature) view of the world as an alternative to our mindless acceptance of the status quo.
    If you just want to helpfully answer questions, PM the original questioner. It's called a forum for a reason, and while Optiboard endeavors to discourage any pointed disagreement or display of wit, it's thus far still technically a forum of sorts and as such expects of the user an understanding that any ideas put forth may be challenged.
    Having said that, you seem quite sharp, polite, and reasonable; and if indeed I've given the impression that I've something against you personally I hope to disabuse you of that notion with my sincere wish that no matter what the topic we will argue ideas with the vehemence due a worthy challenger.
    I'm really done with all this. Re-read your previous post, the sarcasm and name-calling are personal. You added nothing to the discussion. I really don't understand your reference to my quotes and how my opinions misrepresent them. A forum is a place for discussion, and when someone asks a question, they expect answers. Nobody expects those answers to come in PMs, they expect them on the forum so we can all take part in a civil discussion. Challenging someone's point-of-view is fine, but you must do it with some sort of experience and facts, not just wit and name-calling. I don't think you have anything against me personally, but you should be careful to use something of substance when engaging in a conversation. Keep in mind- my posts were directly answering the question that was posed, and she was satisfied with my advice. I'll check back to see if you share any experience to verify your fears, until then, keep on doing what you do best- you're a really funny person.
    Aim at heaven and you will get earth thrown in. Aim at earth and you get neither. C.S. Lewis

    An explanation of cause is not a justification by reason. C.S. Lewis

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Help identifying Ray-ban model?
    By efoll in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 07-28-2008, 04:42 PM
  2. Need help identifying this progressive!
    By Ambiance in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 07-07-2008, 09:17 AM
  3. help with Accolade identifying marks
    By melvilletim in forum Progressive Lens Discussion Forum
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-17-2008, 05:32 AM
  4. Marks on AR
    By bt5050 in forum Just Conversation
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 11-15-2007, 12:19 PM
  5. Help Identifying Frame
    By Mike Fretto in forum General Optics and Eyecare Discussion Forum
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 02-28-2006, 07:24 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •