Date: Tue, 21 Jul 1998 09:40:02 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Eva
I'll be leaving for Melb this Sunday 26/7 and remembered your interest in
getting some specs from here. Let us know your prescription and how many
pairs would you like? ASAP svp.
Hi to Alan and Julian
Mandy
Subject: Les lunettes de ma femme, et la plume de ma tante.
Date: Wed, 22 Jul 1998 21:03:56 PDT
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Dear Mandy,
>I'll be leaving for Melb this Sunday 26/7 and remembered your interest in
>getting some specs from here. Let us know your prescription and how many
>pairs would you like?
Mandy, let me reply on Eva's behalf. First, I apologise for not replying to your emails. We've had no access to email at home because of a technical glitch in our computer.
I think Eva will want some glasses, and so will I. We might give you a phone call, but it's a bit late! Perhaps we could get Ray to sort something out for us, if that's a suitable arrangement.
We look forward to seeing you. We hear rumours that you have a health
worry. I do hope it's nothing too serious.
Love to you and Ray,
- Brother Alan
Date: Sun, 20 Sep 1998 20:37:44 PDT
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Dear Ray,
It was wonderful to see you back here. I'm still suffering from this
nuisance of a respiratory problem, but it's getting better. How are you?
How goes the quest for glasses?
When you next see Mahathir, reprove him on my behalf, will you?
Shocking! What hope is there for civilisation in the region?
Must go. We can email again soon: our home email system is at last restored to full utility, following an unaccustomed access of hardware-manipulating acumen on my part.
-Alan
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 19:53:00 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
We have just been to the optician and have come back with several questions.
Please reply quickly so we may proceed further.
1. What is your pD (Pupillary Distance)? On your prescription it says "As
before", which is not much help. If you don't know, you can measure it -
from the side of one pupil to the same side of the other pupil.e.g measure
left side to left side. Or else call Mr Kwong!)
2. Do you want glass or plastic? (Personally I prefer plastic, but can't
presume you do.)
3. If glass do you want multicoated lens?
4. Do you want double bar or single bar? (The guy says double bar is better,
but mine is single, and the frames we looked at were single.)
5. The optician was totally perplexed by your request for a "neutral, inactive, and not according to the reading prescription" smaller section on the bifocals. It makes sense to me, but Mandy agreed with the optician that it was a strange request. Perhaps if you give some clear reasons for it - in detail - we can persuade him to do it.
6. What kind of smaller section? Is it a "round segment", which he seemed to
be saying was the most common type.
7. Do you want three pair exactly the same? That was my interpretation of
your preference, as in "though I prefer it!". In any case there only seemed
to be one brown-rimmed model (not the same brown as your sample). Mandy,
however, feels that "not all necessarily the same" is reason enough to give
you some variety, as three pair the same is boring! Please clarify.
Prices - The bifocals have to be done in a laboratory and would cost $75 for
plastic or non-coated glass ($85 for multicoated glass). The others would be
$35 a pair or $45 if multi-coated glass.
Please let us know the answers to these questions, and, while you're at it,
the question of life, the universe and everything. (I can't believe it's 42.)
And please stop making derogatory comments about our beloved Asian leaders.
They need our full cooperation in these difficult economic times. I see Mandy has attempted to put you straight in this matter. It's bad enough that there are silly jokes going around like "Indonesia has Indo Mee - Malaysia has Sodo Mee." (Well it makes sense to Singaporeans. Something to do with noodles.)
We're off to Cambodia in about three weeks to see if we can help sort out
their post-election difficulties.
Love to Eva and Julian
Raymond.
Subject: beloved leader stuff
Date: Sun, 01 Nov 1998 23:03:06 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
I read Raymond's email to you. Clarify - not MY beloved leaders - no certainly not any of them, so Raymond is only speaking for himself. I was merely pointing out to you not to believe every thing you read in the press.
The horrid little proprietor kept on insisting that the pair of your glasses
are el-cheapo and that you'd have bought them off the shelf. Is this correct? He said that they were inferior, made in Taiwan etc. Typical typical Asian attitude. Even if it's true he should not have mouthed it let alone repeating it several times. I just put up with it. I had a similar experience with another optician who commented on my pair of glasses when I was visiting him with a friend who was buying new ones from him. This island state is peppered with little johnnies and marys who do not think before they speak nor wonder how their remarks may affect the feelings of others.
Yes we are heading for Cambodia and as usual your brother is doing heaps of
research on it.
Hi to Eva and Julian. What's Julian doing these days? It's a relief (huge)
that Kit passed his exams and found a job almost immediately. Hope Julian is
doing the same thing.
mandy
Subject: Looking forward to a spectacular success commissioning glasses.
Date: Tue, 03 Nov 1998 02:54:43 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
CC: noetica@hotmail.com
Dear Raymond,
In answer to your further questions:
> 1. What is your pD (Pupillary Distance)? On your prescription it says
"As before", which is not much help.
I have checked my earlier prescription (from the same optometrist), and there is nothing at all about pupillary distance. I can only assume that it has *always* been as before. If it helps, I have reason to believe that the distance could be equally well given as "as hereafter", since despite indirect evidence that my brain is steadily contracting the same does not seem to apply to the distance between my eyes. (This is a consequence of their being lodged in bony sockets. Thank heaven for small mercies, I say.) If these observations are insufficient to resolve the matter, I can only suggest that we take seriously certain empirical evidence, which tends to suggest that my pupils are 65 mm apart, centre to centre (when I am not cross-eyed, that is).
> 2. Do you want glass or plastic? (Personally I prefer plastic, but can't presume you do.)
The short answer is yes. Let me explain. If the choice were between marshmallow or papier mache', on the one hand, and glass or plastic, on the other, I would certainly choose glass or plastic. (Incidentally, if I had further to choose between the latter two, I feel that I would on this occasion opt for plastic.)
> 3. If glass do you want multicoated lens?
Yes. But since I want plastic, I suggest you ignore this answer. It's likely to confuse us both.
> 4. Do you want double bar or single bar? (The guy says double bar is better, but mine is single, and the frames we looked at were single.)
As a married man I should think twice about having anything to do with singles bars. But... what the hell, you only live once (or was it twice?). No, I'll have single bar, thanks. (And no menthol, cork-tipped, or low nicotine, either.)
> 5. The optician was totally perplexed by your request for a "neutral, inactive, and not according to the reading prescription" smaller section on the bifocals. It makes sense to me, but Mandy agreed with the optician that it was a strange request. Perhaps if you give some clear reasons for it - in detail - we can persuade him to do it.
This person demands to know the distance between my pupils, except when I cross my eyes, yet he thinks *I'm* the one making strange requests! O well, let me give my reasons.
A. A Singaporean optician's life can be so dull. I like to think I'm brightening up his day. At the very least it'll give him something to report to his wife when he gets home, for a change:
Hi Honey. How was work?
O, some nut in Australia wants glasses that don't do
anything - at least, don't do anything in their lower segments.
Isn't that illegal?
Not in Australia, Hon. They're *different* there.
Different!?! But that's illegal...
Shhh! You'll get us into trouble!
B. I like to think that I'm only *partially* shortsighted.
C. I really only want bifocals so I'll have another way to tell which way up my glasses are. (I told you my brain was contracting, didn't I?)
D. I think it's only fair that people get a good view of my eyes, undistorted by lenses that are not suitable for their vision. As a compromise, I propose offering a modest window through which this can be achieved. Since I am taller than average, it seems proper that this window be in the lower part of the lens.
E. Last but by no means least, my eyesight is not really too bad. I'd like to use my special bifocals when driving, because I can read the speedo etc. perfectly comfortably without glasses, and uncomfortably with either distance or reading glasses. A similar reason applies in other situations. I do have a pair of standard bifocals now, and it's really most uncomfortable having one segment adapted for distant objects, another for close objects, and no segment for things at "ordinary" distances in between. In the case of reading glasses, one can have "look-over" style glasses. But for glasses with a distance element, there is standardly no similar option. Some people have trifocals or even smoothly graded multifocals, but these are expensive and unnecessary for my purposes.
As a concession to optometric orthodoxy, I now request that the lower segment of the left lens correct for my slight astigmatism in that eye (see prescription), and, if it makes your man feel better, let him set the lower segments in both lenses to +0.00, rather than as I have described things. If he baulks at this, tell him I have had a miraculous cure, and now require only +0.01 in both eyes. (The disadvantage here is that I also want reading glasses as prescribed. You may therefore have to resort to a judicious use of chloroform at an appropriate stage, which may have an effect on his short-term memory that can be turned to our advantage.)
> 6. What kind of smaller section? Is it a "round segment", which he seemed to be saying was the most common type.
Are these the little half-moon shaped sections? I suppose they're OK: they're what I have at the moment. But I think I'd prefer lower sections "all the way across", if our obfuscatory oculist is not affronted by the suggestion.
> 7. Do you want three pair exactly the same? That was my interpretation of your preference, as in "though I prefer it!". In any case there only seemed to be one brown-rimmed model (not the same brown as your sample). Mandy, however, feels that "not all necessarily the same" is reason enough to give you some variety, as three pair the same is boring! Please clarify.
If the one brown-rimmed model looks any good to you, I'll have all three in that model. If you have doubts, let two pair be brown-rimmed and the purely-distance pair be plain, unbrowned gold, after a style appealing to your own taste and good judgement, bearing in mind our shared coloration.
Prices - The bifocals have to be done in a laboratory and would cost $75 for plastic or non-coated glass ($85 for multicoated glass). The others would be $35 a pair or $45 if multi-coated glass.
So I gather that the cost will be $145 in total, plus postage. Pack them
carefully, won't you, along with the sample pair I sent. I'll reimburse Dylan, if you like, or manage things as you wish. (Incidentally, your pedantic prescription-filler-feller is right about the sample pair: they are very cheap, off-the-shelf non-scrip reading glasses, which I bought for about $15! They work, and conveniently enough they look much as I want glasses to look. To get glasses made up here looking like them would cost an optometrist's ransom, you understand. So, many thanks!)
> Please let us know the answers to these questions, and, while you're at it, the question of life, the universe and everything. (I can't believe it's 42.)
You're right. It's not 42, which is rather the *answer*, as you recall, not the question. (See? You should have had "... *to* the question of life, ...") We philosophers and associated luminaries are still processing the question as to the question. I'll put you on the subscription list for regular bulletins concerning our progress, if you like. (So far we have succeeded in eliminating "What is the capital of Uruguay?", which had looked quite promising until a professor in Uzbekistan pointed out a category error that had escaped the working party's notice: '42' must designate some number, not some city. We are currently working on "Do you think a girl should kiss on her first date?", but the smart money is against this too. It owes too much to Woody Allen's "Take the Money and Run", and most of us are of the opinion that there must be something deeply politically correct about the universe. How else can we account for the popularity of Jerry Seinfeld, and netball on the ABC in prime time?)
> And please stop making derogatory comments about our beloved Asian leaders. They need our full cooperation in these difficult economic times.
Yes, cruel of me, isn't it? After all, they seem to be looking after about 0.00001% of their respective populations very well indeed, and that's at least a good solid start.
> I see Mandy has attempted to put you straight in this matter. It's bad enough that there are silly jokes going around like "Indonesia has Indo Mee - Malaysia has Sodo Mee."
And Singapore has Euno Mee? (Not "you know me". Look up "eunomy".)
> (Well it makes sense to Singaporeans. Something to do with noodles.)
What consenting Singaporean adults do with their own or each other's noodles is something between themselves and their political masters. It is no concern of mine, and I'll thank you to leave it at that.
> We're off to Cambodia in about three weeks to see if we can help sort
out their post-election difficulties.
*Someone* has to. Same here, I fear! OK, we'll talk again soon, and I'll
answer your other emails in my in-box.
Love to Mandy,
- Alan
Subject: Sundry matters briefly dispatched.
Date: Sat, 07 Nov 1998 02:32:38 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Dear R&M,
>I read Raymond's email to you. Clarify - not MY beloved leaders - no certainly not any of them, so Raymond is only speaking for himself. I was merely pointing out to you not to believe every thing you read in the press.
Asian values, indeed! What, forced confessions, police brutality, scarcely veiled corruption on a vast and ruinous scale, opposition members being sued for libel when their criticism of the entrenched powers gets too discomfiting, and every now and then a mocking hint of something vaguely resembling democratic process, just to ease the flow of foreign good-will and aid?
Anyway, I don't even believe what I see with my own eyes half the time these days. We philosophers are trained that way.
Mahathir has railed against currency speculators, so I suppose he is unlikely to enjoy the respect of certain of your associates, eh, Mandy?
>The horrid little proprietor kept on insisting that the pair of your glasses are el-cheapo and that you'd have bought them off the shelf. Is this correct?
This matter has been the subject of explication in my last email. Yes, they are indeed cheap and nasty, but adequate to the task of exhibiting the general style I prefer, for all that.
>Yes we are heading for Cambodia and as usual your brother is doing heaps of research on it.
Bonne chance. Reformez-les, quand vous y serez.
>Hi to Eva and Julian. What's Julian doing these days? It's a relief (huge) that Kit passed his exams and found a job almost immediately.
Yes, I speak to him by email betimes. He seems to be doing very well. We're having them over for dinner soon.
>Hope Julian is doing the same thing.
Julian has settled down into the post-student phase very well, after some initial directionlessness and bad behaviour. He has a new girlfriend, whose mum comes from South India. The rumour is that they may be looking for a place together. We'll see. Anyway, let me know the next episode of Optometrist from Hell.
-Alan
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 10:56:52 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
The deed is done. Sent 3 prs this mofning at 9am.
Off to Malaysia now and returning Monday.
Bye
Raymond
Subject: New Advances in the Science of Lunnettics.
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 1998 21:07:51 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Dear R&M,
>The deed is done. Sent 3 prs this mofning at 9am.
>Off to Malaysia now and returning Monday.
Thanks for that! I hope you enclosed my scrip and my sample specs! How
was Malaysia?
- Alan
Subject: Re: Spectacular Advances
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 19:01:18 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
Alan Crooke wrote:
> Dear R&M,
>
> >The deed is done. Sent 3 prs this mofning at 9am.
> >Off to Malaysia now and returning Monday.
The above was actually written and sent by Mandy with neither my knowledge nor consent; "mofning" is not part of my vocabulary.
> Thanks for that! I hope you enclosed my scrip and my sample specs!
Your hope is in vain. If you can't wait approximately ten months for these items, we'll have to send them separately, though it may now have to wait
until we return from the jungles of Cambodia.
Hope the glasses are satisfactory. After further negotiations, the final cost is S$115. Leave questions of reimbursement until the next time we see you. Let us know how urgently you need the sample glasses. Perhaps we were influenced by the optician's disparagement of them to the extent that it hardly seemed worth the postage to send them home. As for the prescription, we could probably e-mail the important details to you. But surely by the time you need new glasses the measurements will have changed anyway, n'est pas?
Raymond (really this time!)
Subject: Summit
Date: Sun, 15 Nov 1998 22:12:37 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
It was indeed I who did the deed. I had to rush off to the broker's office in the wee hours of the morn and thought it prudent to despatch the said eye-aids en route. It was a rather busy day and I had lots to occupy my mind. I've made regular trips to the broker's office lately as Dr M and his wise men decide to alter their legal standing on investing in their good country ever so regularly that no one really knows what is happening. So investors have to put up with changing legislations and have to fill in form after form for each change!!!!. I have quite a bit "frozen" in that land and have to wait patiently till matters settle.
Like Clinton we've made a last minute cancellation of our attendance at the
summit and spent three glorious food-filled days in Mersing on matters of
more importe like satiating the appetites. My spelling is getting very bad
these days because of my learning French. But I would have at least spelt
n'est-ce pas correctly unlike your brother.
Happy to hear about Julian with his work and new girlfriend. Hi to Eva and
Julian.
See you anon
Mandy
Subject: The Obstinate Oculist, or The Recalcitrant Redivivus.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 02:38:47 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
CC: noetica@hotmail.com
Dear R&M,
Hallelujah! The lunettes arrived today. I am thoroughly delighted with the frames, and with the price. and indeed with four of the six lenses. A million remerciements.
BUT...
Why is the bifocal pair not to my specifications? You have not revealed to me the last chapter of this saga. What belief-beggaring churlishness on the part of your artisan! I already HAD a pair of bifocals made up to my prescription. I don't need or want a second pair! Look, it is a real pain trying to drive with them, or even to read material at, say, arm's length (which I can do happily enough with unaided eyes). Is my choice that unreasonable? Even if it is, surely I should be granted the opportunity to suffer the consequences of it like the consenting adult spectacles-consumer that I am!
I'm very reluctant to put you to more trouble, but put these three options to your man:
1. Take back and refund the cost of the WRONGLY supplied pair;
2. Supply an additional pair EXACTLY as requested at the same cost; or
3. Supply an additional pair to the following compromise specifications at the same cost: as prescribed, except +0.5 in the reading segments.
(In fact, if he selects Option 1, I will give in and keep the glasses, since they're so cheap anyway. But he's not entitled to know that!)
Thanks again for your endeavours. If you get this before Cambodia, drop me a line expeditiously, because I check my email very regularly now.
- Alan
Subject: Re: The Obstinate Oculist, or The Recalcitrant Redivivus.
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 21:53:26 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
Well 4 out of 6 is not too bad. I did look through the glasses but it didn't
mean anything to me, so I was not aware that your specifications were not met. We will contact the man tomorrow and try to explain again what we want. I really thought we had made it clear that he should make it clear. No guarantees, but we'll see what we can do.
Raymond
Subject: Eyes right!?
Date: Tue, 17 Nov 1998 09:13:49 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Ah, Ray...
> We will contact the man tomorrow and try to explain again what we want.
> I really thought we had made it clear that he should make it clear.
No guarantees, but we'll see what we can do.
That'd be marvellous. The compromise I mention (a modest +0.5) should be more communicable to him than the other options. Meanwhile I am delirious with delight over the other two pairs.
- Alan
Subject: Re: Eyes right!? No, the left is the problem!
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 16:51:51 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
We have just spent a gruelling half hour with the eye man. He still feels your request is totally absurd and that nobody in Singapore would ever think of doing such a thing. He also doubts it is done in Australia. (Have you actually heard of it being done there or is your own idea?) There do seem to be some difficulties involved, though I really don't understand the technicalities. One problem with your request appears to be the astigmatism in your left eye. Apparently this must be taken into account in both sections of each lens, even if one is supposed to be neutral. As there are slight differences in the upper part, this has some effect on how the lower part can be shaped. Anyway, the proposal he has come up with appears to be neutral for the right eye and +0.5 for the left. He has drawn us a diagram with some figures but it doesn't mean much to me. However it seems to be as close as we are going to get to what you have requested. Unfortunately he does not know whether the laboratory can actually do this and will only check if we first confirm this is what you really want. The compromise of +0.5 would still require a similar adjustment, and he seemed to have some doubt that even that could be done by the laboratory. According to him, the minimum would normally be about +1.
Other options he suggested were (a) to use narrow frames which would be easy to look under (or over?) at close-up objects (he seemed to think this was okay given the high nose of us "ang mo"s) or (b) no glass at all in the lower section - just have holes cut into the lens. The latter does not seem very aesthetic; not sure if he meant it seriously.
He seems reluctant to accept liability for failing to meet your request,
blaming a breakdown in communication, despite our efforts to make your requirements clear. This is probably just a matter of saving face, important
in any dealings in this culture. But he appears willing to rectify the situation if possible. We should not be too hard on him, as this is, after all, somewhat alien to his usual experience. He is obviously used to telling his customers what they need, not the other way around.
To recapitulate - neutral/inactive on both sides is definitely out of the question. Close enough to neutral, with an adjustment for astigmatism (apparently dictated by the difference in the upper part of the lens) MAY be
an option if (a) you confirm this is acceptable and (b) the laboratory agrees that it can be done. If you want to return the original glasses, the adjustments could be made to them free of charge (assuming it can be done at all in the first place). Otherwise it would be another $35 ("cost price").
Please e-mail asap to tell us if the above is acceptable, and we will
telephone him to go ahead, though I doubt it can be done by Friday in any
case.
Raymond
Subject: Right, what options are left?
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 04:37:59 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
CC: noetica@hotmail.com
Dear long-suffering R&M,
>We have just spent a gruelling half hour with the eye man. He still feels
>your request is totally absurd and that nobody in Singapore would ever think
>of doing such a thing. He also doubts it is done in Australia. (Have you
>actually heard of it being done there or is your own idea?)
Gruelling sounds about right. I have not heard of this being done in Oz, but I know that Eva once tried and failed to commission such a thing. Now I'm more than a little intrigued, so I'll make an enquiry with my optometrist. You see, I've never really had much to do with these people. Everything is so prohibitively expensive here that I've only ever asked for the minimum.
>Anyway, the proposal he has come up with appears to be
>neutral for the right eye and +0.5 for the left...
>... According to him, the minimum would normally be about +1.
Why not simply +0.5 for BOTH eyes? I'd be happy with that, as I've indicated! In fact I'd prefer it to his suggestion, which would be like having one eye corrected and not the other. This would feel odd, and is unlikely to be ophthalmologically sound. So, to reiterate: let him make up a pair with both R and L at +0.5, with astigmatic correction in L. If +0.5 is not possible, let him do +n for both R and L, where n is the lowest positive real number no greater than 1 that is technically and economically feasible, with the astigmatic correction for L.
> Other options he suggested were (a) to use narrow frames which would be
>easy to look under (or over?)
Under is fine but hard to imagine doing. Over is proper for the typical reading glasses, such as you use, but surely out of the question for distance glasses, given the usual layout of the world we occupy (near things generally being lower in the visual field, and far things being higher).
>(b) no glass at all in the
>lower section - just have holes cut into the lens.
This is done in Ozland, I think, but I don't want those. And in that case, what about the "necessary" astigmatic correction? You don't get that from thin air!
> We should not be too hard on him, as this is, after all.
> somewhat alien to his usual experience. He is obviously used to telling
>his customers what they need, not the other way around.
Quite so. I think this attitude is inculcated in many such professions, and I do feel sorry for him as just another victim of a certain kind of regimenting. On the other hand, I find myself with a genuine need, and I would like someone who is capable of meeting it to meet it. Optometric orthodoxy is in grave need of revision if this very rational request of mine can't be accommodated. There must be a way I can drive safely with my rather mild and typical visual impairment, and that must include any correction to vision still enabling me to read the speedo comfortably!
>... it would be another $35 ("cost price").
I would be delighted if things can be done as outlined above. I want the same style of frame as the existing pair (which I will not return, since I can imagine uses for them: for example, at a meeting of pedants in a large hall, at which I must intermittently consult a fine-print dictionary). Please proceed (possibly giving him the requisite payment and addressed packaging to send the thing direct to me?). Thanks again for your patience. Let's talk again before the Cambodian escapade.
(Excuse errors in the above. I'm on Dylan's machine, and can't adjust the font to a readable size!)
- Alan
Subject: the saga continues
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 23:22:42 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hi Alan
You absolutely certain that you want to proceed? I had to accompany your brother but totally under duress to see this guy. He does not listen and contradicts himself sometimes.
Just my say.
mandy
Subject: Yes please, before we all end up in the lunettic asylum!
Date: Wed, 18 Nov 1998 10:04:31 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
CC: noetica@hotmail.com
Dear R&M,
>... Do you agree to the 0.0 option (with the required correction)?
Yes! Anything to bring the matter to something resembling a rational conclusion, and to release you from your protracted stewardship of this affair. It sounds OK.
>> I want the same style of frame as the existing pair
>
>Can't remember which was which, but it will be the same as one of the two
>frames we chose last time.
Make it the browner, non-shiny style, please.
Many thanks, as always.
- Alan
Subject: Re: Right, what options are left?
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 00:09:54 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Dear Alan
> Why not simply +0.5 for BOTH eyes? I'd be happy with that, as I've
> indicated! In fact I'd prefer it to his suggestion, which would be like
> having one eye corrected and not the other. This would feel odd, and is
> unlikely to be ophthalmologically sound. So, to reiterate: let him make
> up a pair with both R and L at +0.5, with astigmatic correction in L. If
> +0.5 is not possible, let him do +n for both R and L, where n is the
> lowest positive real number no greater than 1 that is technically and
> economically feasible, with the astigmatic correction for L.
The problem seems to be that the astigmatic correction is in fact +0.5. On
your prescription the column marked Cyl. (for cylinder) has a figure of -.50
against the L (Left eye). As I understand it this necessitates a slight
difference in the upper lenses, which, in turn, requires the lower lenses to
differ. It may have something to do with the overall production of the lens;
I don't understand it, but the man is adamant that this discrepancy must be
there, whatever the degree +n may be. (In fact we looked at the +.5 option
and he came up with a different figure for the left eye, so that is not
going to solve the problem.) I should perhaps mention that he did refer to
some kind of slight blurring effect, but I was unable to establish whether
he meant this would be a result of NOT adjusting for stigmatism, or an
inevitable result of doing the required adjustment. Let's hope it is the
former. In any case, it appears to be impossible to have the lower sections
of equal degree, given the necessity of following the prescription for the
upper sections. Due to my inadequate knowledge of the science of optometry I
have no choice but to accept his assurances that it cannot be done. If you
talk to an optometrist in Australia you will probably be able to get a
better idea of the problem, without the cultural and linguistic barriers we
are facing here. Thus your preferred option is not viable. I suggest we
take our chances and accept his offer, assuming that he can actually
persuade the laboratory to do so.
> Under is fine but hard to imagine doing.
> Over is proper for the typical reading glasses, such as you use, but
> surely out of the question for distance glasses, given the usual layout of
> the world we occupy (near things generally being lower in the visual field, and far things being higher).
Actually he didn't suggest over. That was my addition. eg. What if you want
to examine an insect that has settled on your sun-visor?
> my rather mild and typical visual impairment, and that must include any
> correction to vision still enabling me to read the speedo comfortably!
He didn't seem to think you could read the speedo comfortably based on the
figures on the prescription! He went into an elaborate demonstration of this
which I couldn't really follow.
> I would be delighted if things can be done as outlined above.
They can't be. Do you agree to the 0.0 option (with the required correction)?
> I want the same style of frame as the existing pair
Can't remember which was which, but it will be the same as one of the two
frames we chose last time.
> Please proceed (possibly giving him the requisite payment and addressed
> packaging to send the thing direct to me?).
This would obviously require more than a phone call. Time is running out,
but we may be able to organise it, assuming we get your reply quickly.
> I'm on Dylan's machine, and can't adjust the font to a readable size!)
Looks like you need some glasses.
Friday afternoon we leave for Thailand (by bus) and thence to Cambodia.
We will communicate again before then.
Raymond
Subject: Mr Chew say no can do.
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 18:20:41 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Dear Alan,
The laboratory can not do the +0.0 option. However they have consented to
do a +.25 - with the required adjustments for astigmatism. Sounds good to
me. I've left Mr Chew with a stamped addressed postpack already containing
your sample pair. He will send it in a few days time, when the work is
completed. Cost (already paid) $35 plus $6.10 for postpack and postage.
Hope it gets to you okay and it turns out to be something like what you
actually want. We will have to remain in suspense until we return from
Cambodia to hear the end (?) of the saga.
We are off to our French meal now.
Have a good Christmas, etc. Love to Eva and Julian.
Raymond
Subject: Mr Crooke say "now can look".
Date: Thu, 19 Nov 1998 04:48:49 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Dear R&M,
>The laboratory can not do the +0.0 option. However they have consented to
>do a +.25 - with the required adjustments for astigmatism. Sounds good to me.
Excellent!!! This will be super, I'm sure. A million thank yous (and youse too). My salutations to Mr Chew, who has earned a respite from harassment from the temperate zone.
-Alan
Subject: Re: Mr Crooke say "now can look".
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 00:02:28 +0000
From: crooke <crooke@moe.edu.sg>
To: Alan Crooke <noetica@hotmail.com>
Hello again Alan
> But... I thought Cambodia was just for three weeks, so... won't we
> communicate again before Christmas?
No. We will be away over 5 weeks, at least three of which will be in Cambodia - expecting to return on 28 December, as there could be a staff meeting any time after that. We leave tomorrow for a 15 hr overnight bus trip from JB to Haadyai (quite comfortable, apart from Rambo-type videos dubbed into Thai - it enables us to arrive at Haadyai in time to have an early lunch at one of our favourite restaurants in the universe), then train to Bangkok, where we will get visas for Cambodia and make further travel plans.
Hope all goes well with the glasses. Can this really be the end?
Raymond
Subject: Well can it?
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1998 20:13:41 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: crooke@moe.edu.sg
Dear R&M,
>Hope all goes well with the glasses. Can this really be the end?
Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you, Mr Jones? But I'm sure all will now go well. OK, Happy Christmas, and we'll talk later.
- Alan
Subject: Re: We have returned.
Date: Sun, 10 Jan 1999 16:47:42 PST
From: "Alan Crooke" <noetica@hotmail.com>
To: rayyoong@hotmail.com
Dear RayYoong,
> We have returned from Cambodia over a week ago and I'm now back at school.
Welcome, er, back ... though it doesn't FEEL as if you're back, from
this distance. I look forward to your full report on Cambodia and all
the rest when things are more settled for you.
> Did your glasses arrive? Are they satisfactory?
The glasses arrived, and are handy things. But unfortunately they are not QUITE the same frames as before - they are a bit narrower top to bottom. But the reading portion is as big as previously. The net result is that looking straight ahead I gaze directly at the junction of the two portions, which renders them worthless for driving, or anything except reading (the lower magnification is just fine) and occasionally glancing at the ambient world in crystal detail! Our favourite oculist really should have been able to foresee this difficulty, which would be present even without my special request regarding the strength of the reading portion. What's really needed is just a narrow strip of reading portion with a straight upper boundary. Such glasses are a commonplace.
But I'm happy, don't get me wrong! I won't ask for anything more from you in this affair. Consider it closed. When I eventually come to Singapore I'll bring detailed drawings, photographs, puppetry, and tables of technical data as aids to negotiating the perfect pair.
>Please let us know if you have received this.
As far as I can tell I have received this.
>How is life in Upwey?
Good. Eva went away between Christmas and New Year to a Confest (you know, New Age naked-muddy-hippy-fest and alternative-lifestyle extravaganza) near Wangaratta, and had a great time. I had a quiet time at home plodding along with this video work, which should draw to a close in a couple of weeks. Your boys and their mates seem happy and well. Julian's thriving in his job, and with his girlfriend.
>Love to Eva and Julian.
And to both of you from all here.
- Alan