"It maybe reinstated later if the potential problem goes away."
Would that be you then Mark?
|
>>Would that be you then Mark?
No it would be (name deleted), btu that would take rather too much in the way of self-awareness. If you mean - is he blaming me -, then yes.
|
|
|
|
The thread began with an attack by No FM2R on something in my Telegraph column.
I changed the subject of the thread from 'HJ Column - Saturday' (or something like that) to 'Varifocals' for the sake of accuracy because No FM2R was only referring to one e-mail about varifocals, not the entire HJ Column.
The word "rot" was deleted from one post by No FM2R.
His entire comment was removed from another post.
Backroomers can judge for themselves whether this editing to remove something I found offensive constitutes "forgery". Or that removing a comment entirely and removing the word "rot" from another post constitutes "substantially altered and its content significantly altered."
HJ
|
|
I find my varifocals fine for driving - indeed with ordinary glasses I would be able to focus sharply on objects ahead in the road or on the instruments, but not both.
|
|
|
>>Backroomers can judge for themselves
Lets have a stab at reality;
The notes -
In response to HJ's statement: [ heavily paraphrased because I can't remember exactly] "people with sight problems to deny are arrogant or hiding".
>My Response [quoting above]
>
>Which am I ?
>
>Arrogant, ill-educated, ridiculous rot.
Changed to;
>Which am I,
>
>Arrogant, ill-educated, ridiculous ?
I may be all of those things. HJ may wish to accuse me of being those. Amongst friends it might be funny [probably not]. However, within an itnernet forum we are what we write. And to have that mis-represented or forged by another is unjust, unfair, and unacceptable.
Tto alter one of my own notes to read completely differently as an alternative to either arguing with me or ignoring me is cowardly. You can try revisionist history as much as you want, Peter - you did it with Bogush, you've done it with others. As a moderator I covered for you doing it when you were accused of it. However, this time you *will* admit it or you *will* live with me dogging your heels until I get bored - which in reality will not take long. However, thereafter whenever you voice some dumb-ass opinion such as "you shouldn't drive with varifocals" I will remember how annoyed I was and it will start all over again.. And that could last a very long time and it will not matter how often you disable my account. It was a daft thing to do, but it was utterly idiotic to deny it and to rewrite history.
What did you expect ? Did you think that I would suddenly think "doh, I mis-remembered history" as I climbed out of my Texan shower ? Two people know the truth, however many suspect it - you and I. I cannot think that you believe your own mis-representation nor truly that you expect that I will. So why pretend ? Because you are worried about others opinion over and above what is true ? How shallow.
And marshal the troops against me as you might, I do not worry about the opinions of others half as much as you.
Do/say what's right, or at least what you believe to be so, and damn the consequences. I do. And when you're wrong, get over yourself. I try.
|
|
Umm. Does any of that make sense if you know the background??
|
Does any of that make sense if you know the background??
Frankly, not much. But it matters to me.
|
|
That much is obvious, you appear to be in a similar mood to me this evening.
|
So go to another thread and don't let this one worry you . Why bother commenting on something which doesn't interest or concern you ? Doh.
>>you appear to be in a similar mood to me this evening.
And probably will be on and off for a very long time.
|
|
Fair point, it's purely drivin by curiosity and boredom.
|
|
|
|
"Does any of that make sense if you know the background??"
Makes sense to me, having read all of original thread. (and being interested as someone who is considering varifocals)
One may not agree with all Mark says, but his views are always well-argued and entertaining and usually very informative and I see (I hope) the point he is making.
Don't think I would like to be arguing the opposite point to him mind you!!
Principles do matter- and I think this is about principles (I hope - again!!)
--
Phil
|
|
|
|
|
The thread began with an attack by No FM2R on something in my Telegraph column.
It wasn't an attack, I said your comment on varifocals was ill-informed, ill-educated, short-sighted ridiculous garbage. I paraphrase, but it was something to that effect.
I have no comment one way or the other on your column, although I wish do you'd generally stick to what you know, it was your opinion I was commenting on.
|
Oh dear - I fear that this thread will go the way of the last - and it's an important topic which deserves sensible debate. HJ has a right to his opinion, which will have come from experience not prejudice.
My feeling is that there may be sub-standard varifocals on sale which can cause some of the problems described. Like others, I wear them and on mine the change from top to bottom is seamless and imperceptible.
I would expect that reputable opticians are able to advise on this, so if any of us have doubts we should go for a consultation.
(And if we disagree with a moderator, shouldn't we E-mail them directly and allow reasoned debate to continue?)
|
|
|
you mention this is an internet forum, can i just point out this is HJs forum. Probably not the best place to say that something he has written is ridiculous rot! By all means disagree with his opinion and discuss it, but dont insult the man and his work, you wouldnt like it.
Maybe the edit was inappropriate, but this is HIS forum. Surely by posting here you must expect editing where necessary or when deemed necessary by the mods or hjs. There are probably some T&Cs you agreed to when signing up to the forum to this effect.
I have found this to be an invaluable resource and would hate to see it harmed due to issues you have with the site owner. A forum my wife frequented was completely removed after a number of posters started moaning about the company behind the forum.
thats my view and i will not be posting to this thread further.
|
For now I'll leave no FM2R to it.
He seems to have taken personal offence to a comment describing Telegraph readers generally (including him, but not exclusively him), as if it was aimed at him and no one else.
That comment was, in its context, (lifted from the hidden thread):-
Varifocals - slowdown avenue
Sat 16 Sep 06 22:56
varifocals, good for straight ahead vision, poor for focusing quickly left and right, and reversing,. eye sight is crucial to good driving,young persons eyes more elastic, but experience gets the rest through,
Varifocals - Honestjohn
Sat 16 Sep 06 23:14
Thank you, Slowdown Avenue. That's what readers who don't have something to hide or a disability to defend keep telling me. And what everyone involved in any form of competititve motor sport always has.
HJ
Varifocals - No FM2R
Sat 16 Sep 06 23:24
>>That's what readers who don't have something to hide or a disability to defend
Which am I ??
Blinkered, dogmatic, uneducated, ill-informed comment.
(Originally "Blinkered, dogmatic, uneducated, ill-informed rot")
Now is No FM2R taking something unnecessarily personally and making a mountain out a molehill?
I leave it to you the Backroom to judge.
HJ
|
|
|
"you must expect editing where necessary "
There is editing and there is changing the sense of the message altogether.
I agree that this is a wonderful forum and all credit to HJ for that - it's the first (and often only) thing I log onto after a day's work.
"invaluable resource " - absolutely - but suspected mis-information must also be pointed out (as it often is) so that we can make our own decisions.
--
Phil
|
Having not read the original thread, was there a suggestion that varifocals impair a person's sight for driving? In that case, why would an optician recommend varifocals to anyone who drives?
I now wear varifocals and I didn't find the adjustment at all difficult. It took about a day to get used to them.
|
|
|
|
Hi Mark,
I agree with you on this one, that is as far as varifocals goes.
However I reckon it does no good to air dirty washing in public, I complained bitterly about the moderating once not so long ago, I involved HJ, got called pathetic and childish, I did it all by e-mail though still got it off my chest.
Regards.
|
Have worn glasses since 1971 and varifocals since May. Can now read, use the PC and see my colleague across the office without taking my specs on and off. No trouble driving or cycling. Agree that bifocals, or trifocals, with a sharp transition between the different elements of the lens would be bad for driving but I don't see properly made and well fitted varifocals are necessarily bad, though I guess your mileage may vary according to prescription etc.
Driving off with your reading glasses on is another question!!!
|
|
I had great trouble , for the first few days when getting varifocals.just thinking about ,that they write on door mirrors, objects may be nearer than they seem, could be warning given to varifoals. just to add some coal to the fire.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
