Where has Bar been lately? Is she on hiatus?
who is foo?
a new poster? i'm surprised there is no comments yet, should say welcome maybe
Oh, you teases, with your slinky red dresses and your flirting ways and your anonymous posters doing a slow, sensual reveal.
I guess what I'm saying, w-lfs-n, is that I bought dinner and I'd better get to at least third base.
Someone's Facebook status should perhaps not be "needs sunglasses."
It's kind of w-lfs-n, but also kind of Lileks. I call hideous chimera. The kind that was supposed to be outlawed by the 2003 SOTU but like so many things never came through.
Anyway, evil chimera, you can use your old scrip to get 29-dollar glasses (and prescription sunglasses for slightly more) at optical4less.com.
This post has been edited in a way that makes my joke in 2 incomprehensible rather than merely lame. I object!
That said, I have had the same thought regarding glasses prescriptions many a time.
now should ask maybe to erase 4
ok, welcome
but wouldn't you all prefer the new posters go under their usual handles
Someone's Facebook status should perhaps not be "needs sunglasses."
I figured style would out anyway, but, thanks for playing along, you shameless jam-tease.
(2 and 3 are explicable with reference to MT's confusingly-named settings.)
I'd swear it's w-lfs-n's voice but the sock puppet's lips move so convincingly.
Sorry, Merganser.
You'd never recognize Bar anyway, after what happened.
CHRIST! I am a shameless jam-tease. Argh.
(2 and 3 are explicable with reference to MT's confusingly-named settings.)
Not just those two. Why do you think I said "testing"?
Actually, 2 combined with 10 and then puzzled through 3 turns a cute joke into an engaging puzzle. Frank L. Lewis, call your office.
(2 and 3 are explicable with reference to MT's confusingly-named settings.)
MT::Author->name and MT::Author->nickname are totally not confusing.
Not just those two. Why do you think I said "testing"?
I would never use that identifier for testing purposes. Search on this page for the relevant term.
Is the idea for the regular posters to troll us in ways that make us miss ogged's trolling style? It's working.
Jam peccadillos aside, I did say "someone".
Betrayed by my guilty conscience!
19 to 14.
read, if this is ever to end, you'll have to post a comment that requests its own destruction.
i thought 19 to 18 and was about to say good night
noone responds to my pleases, i know
ogged never did :(
Young w-lfs-n is clearly ignorant of the fact that eye prescriptions can actually change. Aging's going to be a shock for this one.
Young w-lfs-n is clearly ignorant of the fact that eye prescriptions can actually change.
To quote the post: Sure: in the period of time between the original prescribing and the current purchasing, the poor person's vision might well have changed;
WHAT IS THIS DRIVEL? THIS NEW POSTER IS HORRIBLE. I OBJECT!
dag, i should read the thread before commenting. Sorry, Ben.
The new bloggers would like to announce a hiatus, but we haven't given them the proper permissions yet.
Nice try, Michael, but you've got to get up pret-ty early in the morning to outsmart me; far earlier than your lazy louisiana woman's ass could ever manage.
The new bloggers have gone off to England. King Claudius asked them to escort a diplomatic mission.
..but then you go on to express skepticism that four years is long enough to assume the prescription's changed. I know no one who needs glasses and has kept exactly the same prescription for four years -- most need a new one every couple of years. (Me, I've gotten a new one every year since before I was w-lfs-n's age.)
No, what I express skepticism regarding is the idea that in four years the glasses that I currently have will also have changed.
Since they manifestly haven't, if the options are (a) continuing to wear glasses made according to the old prescription and (b) wearing new glasses made according to the old prescription, it's hard to see why (a) is acceptable but (b) isn't.
... such unscrupulous blackguards?
Opt/icus.com
Those are quite handsome. They look as if they could contain both the destructive intensity of Scott Summer's laser beams and the heartrending sentiments of John Lennon's melodies.
1. Ben, surely you can write a post that doesn't actually sound like you. I acknowledge that you may not have been attempting to do such a thing; however, I am curious as to your ability to do it.
2. Optometrists may well sign the Hippocratic Oath, and it may be that lens-grinders are mere technicians in the service of said optometrists.
3. Sadly, I have learned that laws about these things are (or were, or at least I've, uh, gained this impression) differ state by state. I was irrititated to learn when I moved here that a prescription for corrective lenses may be no more than one year old (I think), and must be from an in-state optometrist. No, your prescription from another state will not do. At least I think that's how it went. Anyway, my arm was twisted.
4. No, I do not understand the reasoning behind all of this.
5. This post could conceivably have been written by Mary Catherine.
I warn you, ben, glasses like that can only lead to supervillainy.
w-lfs-n, this is not funny. All jokes about new bloggers must cease until they actually show up.
Also, I want scifi.com to post the *Battlestar* mid season finale tonight. I can't bear the fact that Havrilesky knows the revelations and I do not.
I made it all the way through this post, so it can't be a true w-lfs-n.
40:
Do you think Ben's dissertation reads like his blog posts?
Not to me; I remember Scott's mask being one piece, like a skin diving mask, with a shield mechanically activated like a mail slot—how damage from having the beam reflected back at him was avoided wasn't explained, perhaps it was an absorbent material.
the *Battlestar* mid season finale
Is that what that was? A mid-season finale? 'twas odd, so finale-like, and yet. This is the last season, I thought.
Do you think Ben's dissertation reads like his blog posts?
Ben's dissertation doesn't exist.
It's true that Ben's academic papers don't read very much like his blog posts.
I warn you, ben, glasses like that can only lead to supervillainy.
And that's bad?
44: Unknown; one wonders. He did link to some early paper of his not long ago (I didn't click through), in professed demonstration of his early adoption of circuitous prose.
33. it's OK to want a piece. everyone does.
46. 'cuz he's immune to his own power, duh*
(*oh god, oh god all the hours of my life i've wasted!...)
And that's bad?
Not if you enjoy above-average henchmen. If you've got a source, let's talk.
He did link to some early paper of his not long ago (I didn't click through), in professed demonstration of his early adoption of circuitous prose.
I did?!
49: I'm assuming that the academic papers are easier to read (because harder is beyond my imagination).
Good to see you around more, IDP. Snikt!
54: I thought you did. You said something about thanking god that you'd gotten over that tendency. Maybe it was a high school paper.
Ah, right. But I didn't actually link to it.
But a) given that most people's prescriptions have changed at that time, why not make them get a new one, since having a bad Rx can cause headaches and unsafe driving and worse? and b) why would you even want new glasses with the old prescription, anyway? (Again, for normal people values of "you.")
And c) why am I arguing with the content of a w-lfs-n post, anyway? BECAUSE THERE ARE NO NEW BLOGGERS. See what you people are driving me to.
Further to 57: And I didn't click through, so for all I know, you linked to an Onion piece or something.
why would you even want new glasses with the old prescription, anyway?
Getting a new prescription takes money and time.
60: I didn't link to anything, is the thing.
59: And c) why am I arguing with the content of a w-lfs-n post, anyway?
Right, because the syntax is the message.
52: I found I could talk to my daughter, who had picked up the comic book enthusiasm, entirely on the basis of memories from forty years ago. It's as if no important character or relation had changed: if you remembered the scenarios, you knew what you needed to. It amazed me that things could have changed so little.
So you're willing to spend time and money changing out your frames, but not to actually make sure your prescription doesn't give you headaches or make you all squinty?
If I already know that my prescription doesn't make me squinty or give me headaches, something I should be able to figure out, since I use it every day, then, no.
65: Form over function, Magpie, just another application of the general rule you alluded to in 59.c.
I moped around Regenstein with several old pairs from my desk drawer, having sat on my up-to-date pair and broken the frame. I had figured that even though they were weaker, I was reading anyway. But I got headaches, I'm sure because my astigmatism correction had changed, either strength or axis. When I'd leave at night, the mercury street lamps all seemed to have little hats on them.
Zermat! Those sunglasses rock my socks.
69: the mercury street lamps all seemed to have little hats on them.
Ah, the notorious "Wisconsin effect".
I knew you would understand, foxytail.
I'd like a new poster. With a dragon on it, maybe. Or a motorcycle. Or Elle MacPherson riding a motorcycle into a dragon's butt. Or some kind of cool rabbit.
I warn you, ben, glasses like that can only lead to supervillainy.
(Context.)
62: I didn't link to anything, is the thing
Okay, okay. Misremembering, then, I am.
69: When I'd leave at night, the mercury street lamps all seemed to have little hats on them.
Ah. I know this one.
73: I'd like a new poster. With a dragon on it, maybe
74: Can you find the link to the archetype, being lampooned in O Brother, in Cool Hand Luke? Probably WWII aviator style, but I don't remember precisely.
78: they are for ice climbing, I believe, not aviators.
No I'm talking about the image, of the Southern guard. That's how they're being used in O Brother, even though you're right about what they were made for, in the earlier link.
I was making a comparison to this image, from Cool Hand Luke.
80: yeah, those are very different sunglasses, though. I her idle we analyzed the Coen brother's decision not to use aviators we could make somebody here deeply irritated.
80: yeah, those are very different sunglasses, though. I her idle we analyzed the Coen brother's decision not to use aviators we could make somebody here deeply irritated.
Or, what the hell, I could post that again: also annoying!
81-83: her idle
I'm guessing three (or two) miskeys, a missing space, and one (or two) auto-complete(s)? (But that takes a repeated word as well.)
84: it was supposed to be "bet if"; go figure.
I thought it might be "bet ifwe" with b->h, t->r and f->d autocorrecting to idle (so only adjacent letter errors). "Shitfaced" came to mind as well.
It's caused by T9, from your cellphone?
About the Coen Brothers' decision, I think it's a straightforward joke, exactly analagous to having the headband of the Chief's war bonnet in Blazing Saddles read "kosher lo pasach" in Hebrew. You'd have to recognise the glaciar glasses to get it, but it'd be a hoot if you did.
88: I was thinking it was more an allusion to that guy's time spent in hell, lots of reflected light, etc., so the regular aviators wouldn't do the trick.
either my english is improving or misspelings are the fabled internet tardition
i was to correct my no comments is, but if peple say i calls, analagously
either my english is improving or misspelings are the fabled internet tardition
Ain't that the truth. Also, mouseover text?
optical4less is tempting, but less so when the strength of your prescription makes the cheapest glasses $90 rather than $30.
I know no one who needs glasses and has kept exactly the same prescription for four years
My prescription has been about the same for longer than that. If anything, my vision improved slightly in my mid-late 30s, then plateaued. Unfortunately, my eye doc says this is a very normal pattern, to be followed in due course by renewed deterioration, bifocals, etc.
I'm apparently a shoo-in for retinal detachment (extremely myopic) and my gorgeous blue eyes are (they say) especially vulnerable to the gaze of the yellow eye.
I'd be happy to step in as a guest poster until the new bloggers lose their shyness. I have a great piece ready about "reverse Batson" limitations on a defendant's ability to control peremptory strikes during jury selection.
Hello?
Oh, never mind.
Glassy Eyes provides reviews of (and discount codes for) numerous online prescription eyewear companies. I recently got a pair of glasses from Goggles 4 U ($25 including shipping!) that I'm quite pleased with.
"reverse Batson" limitations on a defendant's ability to control peremptory strikes
God, Wizards of the Coast fuck everything up, don't they?
93: My prescription has been the same since 1995. I never needed glasses before then, either. I blame peering at smooth and rough breathing marks.
94: CA, too! What does it say about you philosophe types?
The new posters are clearly in seclusion, poring over the archives like Brahmins learning the Vedas. Their first posts may not appear for decades.
I am having a similar problem to young Ben's, in that I have recently purchased old frames very closely resembling these. They are perfect—utterly simple, with a bridge that fits exactly where it should on my prominent nose. I anticipate hassles from lens-grinders, both because I don't want to take the time to get a new prescription, which I am convinced they will require, and because many will be reluctant to do the work necessary to fit thicker lens to the thin frames. And I haven't even inquired! Which demonstrates that the opticians and their allies have won: they have made me internalize their rules and recalcitrance such that I am made immobile without their having lifted a finger.
the zermat glasses look nice, just on hot summer days the frame wouldn't be kinda the heat accumulating and adding some unwanted extra weight
i know the leather things are the point of the frame, but i'd remove all of them i guess
coz i like to remove extra buttons or pockets or any other decorative things of my new clothes before wearing
I need new glasses, and I need to see an optometrist. Goggles4U looks really awesome. Glasses had gotten so expensive even ten years ago, and what appeals to me is a very classic design; I'm not looking for cutting edge fashion.
though otoh the sides and the nose leather being extra wide maybe would provide more sun protection
so it's a rational design, and tastes of course vary
good night, all
When I use binoculars, I notice that rolling back the eyecups so that they are the correct distance from your eyes while you are wearing glasses permits a lot of light to enter from around and behind your glasses. Something like the Zermats might help with the light exclusion, although they'd cut down your periferal vision at other times. I've thought a better solution would be a one-piece eye cup the size and shape of lab goggles or a scuba mask, which would fit over the eyepieces and would envelope your glasses when brought with the binoculars up to your face. The light exclusion would be complete, yet they'd easily detach and store in your binoculars case.
When I was 50 years old, a Meyers-Briggs test informed me I was particularly suited to be a field biologist. Lawyer, not so much.
104 is utterly, utterly puzzling.
good the night?
more the sun protection?
good night, all the?
I'm stumped.
Prescriptions do change. However, one might not wish to have one's prescription updated by a strip mall doc-in-a-box to fully correct the vision in both eyes if one has been unknowingly relying upon the undercorrection to reorient one's weakly-muscled eye, resulting in a complete clusterfuck of double vision and blurriness after wearing one's new glasses. Said clusterfuck not being rectified by removing the new glasses, one might go completely nuts until someone more qualified than a storefront eye doc is able to diagnose the problem and say "just wear your old contacts for a few days and everything will go back to normal."
Don't skimp on the exam, is all I'm saying.
Some things transcend the all-seeing to become pure Experience.
Damn, those glacier glasses make me think only of popped collars on izods. Hence, insufferable.
Also, my prescription hasn't changed in years, and this thread is making my eyes hurt.
112: they very much are insufferable, yeah. How do I know? I loved them when I was ten.
I'd be happy to step in as a guest poster until the new bloggers lose their shyness.
Yea, me too!
I have several posts already written:
"Save money to ditch that bastard spouse!"
"How to bang the co-worker and not get caught!"
"When did my body get so old?"
It sounded like w-lfs-n pretending to be one of the Fafblogger personas. I been diggin a tunnel.
They are in our midst, of course. Some of them quietly lurk, while others pose as normal, everyday commenters.
To deny the existence of a newblogger fifth column is to be objectively pro-terrorist. Whose side are you on?!
Not if you enjoy above-average henchmen. If you've got a source, let's talk.
Try here.
I haven't read the thread, but it just occurred to me that the events of the last couple of days are probably just some kind of delayed viral marketing campaign for the new M. Night Shymalan movie The Happening:
"Sir, we've lost contact."
"With whom?"
"ogged."
"Science will come up with some reason to put in the blogs, but in the end it'll be just a theory. I mean, we will fail to acknowledge that there are forces at work beyond our understanding."
make me think only of popped collars on izods. Hence, insufferable.
Why, Mo? Collars pop; panties drop.
When reading the TNR blog "The Plank", I play a little game similar to the old gameshow Name That Tune, in which the object was to identify a tune by listening to as few notes as possible. In my version, I challenge myself to see how quickly I can identify a post as one authored by Jamie Kirchick. Typically I can tell by the end of the first sentences. When I'm off my game, it can take two sentences. In rare cases, it takes only a few words.
Anyway, this mini-review of The Happening was one case where I was reasonably I could detect the odor of Kirchick upon reading just the title.
Kirchick's assessment of the superlative awfulness of the film left me thinking that there must be *something* redeeming about it; anything that Mini-Marty hates can't be all bad, can it?
"Save money to ditch that bastard spouse!"
Marriage makes it; divorce takes it.
"How to bang the co-worker and not get caught!"
Wear a silencer.
"When did my body get so old?"
First we must take a core sample. Melonballer, if you would.
So basically what's happened is Ogged convinced the remaining bloggers to just run the blog as far into the ground as they could. It's like a test to see which of the commenters really are pathetic enough to keep hanging around.
It's like a test to see which of the commenters really are pathetic enough to keep hanging around.
You remember the Innocence thread, right?
123 gets it right.
People will greet my next post with effusive praise even if it's entirely about whether cola-flavored Bottle Cap candies are better than root-beer-flavored ones. Commenters are really pathetic.
It's like a test to see which of the commenters really are pathetic enough to keep hanging around.
Yeah. It's ironic that today of all days should be the day that we get a visit from a genuine celebrity.
124: Dear god no. The cola-flavored ones are weird.
Commenters are really pathetic.
Until they become new bloggers. Then they're godlike.
Until they become new bloggers. Then they're godlike.
I hear the new bloggers were all so-called diversity hires. Us white male technocratic liberals never stood a chance, what with the quota already being filled by unf and FL.
||
Youre playing with your breasts, excuse me, can I try it ma'am?
Youre pushin em together like a titty Venn Diagram
Bo, yo.
|>
I know no one who needs glasses and has kept exactly the same prescription for four years -- most need a new one every couple of years.
2001-2008, baby. Minor change in each eye. Got reprimanded by the postdoc doing the exam.
Agreed. Minor changes can be significant, esp. if they're changes in the astigmatism. My prescription is stable, but my cornea shape is still changing. TD is soon turning 30, and his prescription changed (for the worse) dramatically, and so he has been walking/reading/driving even more blind than he already is. Apparently though, hard contacts can correct your vision, but neither of us use them.
I dig my new glasses. I don't think you've seen them yet, w-lfs-n, but they are sort of like yours.
2001-2008, baby.
I did about the same thing, but then lost my glasses just before UnfoggeDCon2. Went to get a new pair for the drive and my eyes had gone from about 20/100 to 20/200 since the last eye exam. Almost shocking how much better I could see with the new pair.
re: 130
Yeah, I had mine tested about four years ago and they'd changed by a tiny incremement from the previous test [about four years earlier], but tested them again this year and the prescription was exactly the same. So, no change at all in four years and only a tiny change in about eight or nine. I have a very mild prescription though, really just for driving and cinema use.
I expect people with stronger prescriptions may find theirs changing more over time?
I have a very strong prescription, but my eyes haven't changed much since I was eighteen.
My understanding is that while the tendency to nearsightedness is hereditary, it is a response to conditions and use as well. Traditionally, my ophthalmologist told me, the great majority of people changed little after 18 or so, because they basically stopped reading much after high school. Obviously college students and people in close-focus occupations, such as machinists, show much more tendency to keep "progressing" on average. I picked up two whole diopters after 18, although I was already ~-5 then, because of college, grad school and law school. My distance correction has changed little in the past twenty-five years though, even as I've probably read nearly as much, and my work has been just as much like "study" as ever it was.
I became presbyopic beginning in my mid-forties, and that continues to progress, as my lenses harden, I suppose. Modern glasses usually feature a blending area, very useful for in-between distances, particularly computer screens, although you'll find you have to hold your head in a particular position for long periods.
My wife's contacts—I can't wear them— obviate the need for bifocals, and she can see close all around the edges, not just down. Great for finding something on a pantry shelf.
I assume that my endless hours reading on the computer in the middle of the night have contributed heavily to the degradation of my eyesight.
When I had insurance I got a new examination and prescription every two years, and was always glad I did it.
I should get glasses, I guess. But really, who cares about distance vision? All that crap's far away, anyhow.
I should get glasses, I guess.
What you should get is a monocle.
138: Mr. Magoo got along fine without distance vision -- and so can you!
139, 140: both excellent points.
I have broken a lens and gotten it replaced without any requirement for a new eye exam.
I assume that my endless hours reading on the computer in the middle of the night have contributed heavily to the degradation of my eyesight
There's a well-nigh limitless number of nouns that could substitute for the last word of that sentence.
What you should get is a monocle.
Be sure not to be consistent about which side you wear it on, for optimal doofery.
130:
2001-2008, baby. Minor change in each eye. Got reprimanded by the postdoc doing the exam.
1978-2008, baby. My eyes stopped elongating at about age 21, so my distance vision stabilized then, absolutely no change in prescription since. I can still wear my GlobalCorp standard issue safety glasses I received when I hired on. They are great for a nerd costume, black frames with small lenses. My machine shop pals would laugh at such inadequate 'safety' glasses.
Now, near vision degradation, yeah, that has started. You can get those glasses over the counter almost anywhere. Personally I've started monocular correction meaning my dominant eye is for far away and the other one I dial down the prescription to accommodate close vision. The nice thing about elongated eyes is that they compensate somewhat for the loss of close vision.
the year I started reading greek literature (as opposed to just learning grammar) and started taking sanskrit, my vision took a total nosedive. it's just gone on getting worse since then slowly but steadily. like oudemia, I blame rough breathing marks, iota subscripts, and the horrible curly font in my german edition of the republic.
My friend who learned Sanskrit really regretted it. Nothing but sutras and sastras and vinayas and what not.
For me it can be hard to tell whether or not my prescription has changed significantly until trying the new one. Gradual shifts can be hard to notice. But when I do get a new one and can see all the edges on the leaves of trees, joy!
There is a big variation in what we all here think of as "bad" eyesight. My script is -11.5, and my eyes change nearly every year, though never as much as the steep nose-dive around age 8. Hard contacts do help, Belle, but not 100% - they just slow changes down. But they let way more oxygen through to your eyes than soft lenses, which is great.
-11.5?! Holy oleo. Mine are -3.5 or so.
Yeah, I think people should mention the number when commenting.
152: I'm not sure that optical prescription numbers are actually that relevant to most comments.
Well, maybe not, but it would keep things more in perspective. There are many causes for vision problems and if someone like me is bragging his vision hasn't changed in thirty years but has a prescription of -3.5 that sure is different from someone else who's vision is in the -10 range and fluctuates. And there is that group therapy thing where hearing how tough someone else has it can make one's own problems seem smaller in comparison.
154: well, right, but on the porn thread it could be misconstrued.
155: Plus all the vaseline on your retinas makes it kind of a moot point anyway.
