Jump to content
BC Boards

Early Takeoff Syndrome?


Recommended Posts

Based on the number of lame and/ or stressed dogs that I see at the shows, I'd say that many agility competitors are lacking in observational skills.

 

Or they just don't give a damn.

 

I agree, plenty of people aren't paying attention. Some don't care.

 

Watch a little closer and you will also see plenty of healthy dogs who are comfortable and having a blast. Watch even closer and you will see handlers who put their dog's needs first. Pay attention and you will see people using their observational skills quite nicely.

 

Or maybe it's a regional thing. I've certainly seen plenty of people treat their dogs in a way that I personally don't like. But I also see a vast majority of fine handlers who are looking out for their dogs and their well being. I find it hard to believe that is unheard of in other parts of the country, but if that's how it is, then it's truly a shame.

 

I find the assumption that observational skills are non-existent because there are those who either do not know how to use them, or they choose not to use them, a bit odd. I observe my dogs every day and can tell pretty easily if they are at ease or stressed, comfortable or uncomfortable, feeling good or in pain, happy or depressed, etc. etc. etc. I can tell pretty readily when they like something, dislike something, or are indifferent to something. I didn't realize that was such a rare practice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 927
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sure the owner should know the dog better than anyone. Hunan nature being what it is, some people only see what they want to see, some people see things that aren't really there. Many times a person is so emotionally invested in a situation that an unbiased opinion would be a good thing.

 

An old dog trainer friend of mine often uses the phrase "kennel blind"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know from the posts on the Clean Run list, I believe they are just trying to figure out if it is a vision issue and if the contacts can/will help. I don't know that he has stated what his competition plans may or may not be. My understanding is that he posted the video so that those who are interested can observe the difference that the lenses have made in these "test" situations. For study, education, etc.

 

That was my impression as well, that the idea was not to encourage people to run out and get contacts for their dog, but to show the differences in how the dog takes jumps when his vision is corrected thus helping show that dogs who are having this ETS are likely having a vision issue.

 

I only skim the CR list so I might have missed something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Really? Are you sure? If that's the case then why are there so many supposedly affected ETS dogs out there? Wouldn't the observant dog owner see the discomfort and stop? Oh wait, nevermind. I'm confusing observant and obsessive.

 

Seems a little unfair. Do you know the number of dogs who have been retired from agility due to their owners believing they had ETS? DO you see a lot of dogs running agility and hitting bars who are uncomfortable?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just keep hoping that people will stop putting winning above all else. And let's not kid ourselves, though no doubt our favorite Devil's Advocate will argue that it's not about winning but about making sure the dog is happy doing what it loves to do. I would counter that dogs love to do stuff with their humans, and if the dog is no longer capable of doing one thing, the average (no special intelligence needed) human could probably come up with something that the dog could enjoy while taking its limitations into account.

 

Let me reiterate: In case you haven't figured it out, I just don't buy into the whole argument that the dog, if retired because of an inability, whatever that inability may be, including poor eyesight, is going to wither away in sadness over having been retired to being a companion animal. Dogs like to do things with their humans, and if the HUMAN were willing to give up the sport, the dog would be happy to do so as well, as long as it was still doing SOMETHING with its human. From this POV, fitting a dog with contact lenses so that it can continue to compete really is more about the human's desires than the dog's.

 

It's way too easy for people to justify all sorts of things by saying "It's for the dog," you know, because the dog LOVES what it does and would simply be devastated if it couldn't do that anymore. I have a bunch of those devastated retirees right here in my house. Hmmm...maybe I could still be running Jill in open if only I could find someone to fit her with hearing aids. Oops, shouldn't have mentioned that. It'll be come the next big trend, because you know, my dog is just dying here because she can't hear well enough to work, and as much as she loved work, she'd surely love a hearing aid so she could keep at it. Oh yeah, and bionic hips.

 

As Blackdawgs noted, it's the start of a slippery slope. I am a very dog (animal) savvy person and I even have no problem doing minor medical procedures on my animals if it came to that, but I can say pretty emphatically that I have no wish to insert and remove contact lenses from my dog's eyes. I don't care how driven the animal is, how much it loves what it does, or any of that. I care about the well-being of the animal. And I will adjust my expectations of that animal based on what the animal is capable of doing and not on what medical science can "make" the animal do. And so I will find stuff the dog can enjoy that doesn't require those fixes. It's a completely different philosophy toward my dogs I suppose.

 

For example, Twist has arthritic feet. She loves to work and still works on the farm, but if she is on a surface like gravel, or certain other rough surfaces, her feet hurt, and she shows it. I could choose to give her pain meds and anti-inflammatories so she could continue to run in trials, but is it worth it? After all, I've not had so much success with my other dogs as I had with Twist. Why shouldn't I keep going? She probably has another National Finals in her. She's nearly 10 and I started trialing her at 6 months. What does she owe me when it comes to trialing and working? What do I owe her? I have chosen to retire her from trialing and let her work at home in conditions that don't exacerbate her problem. I'm sure I've cut myself out of some wins on the trial field. But I know I'm not putting her through unnecessary pain or unnecessary medicating just so she can go out and do it "one last time" or "20 more times" or whatever. She's not wasting away from sadness at no longer trialing. She's very happy to take long walks/runs through the woods, fetch, swim, and work when she feels like it. I feel that's what I can do for her after all she's done for me. Like I said--a different philosophy. And I would feel the same way if she was 4 and in her "prime."

 

If you put corrective lenses in a human's eye, you can explain what you're doing and why. With a dog, yes, you can observe discomfort assuming the dog shows discomfort, but since I have seen dogs work despite some very painful conditions, I think it's a taking a huge leap to assume that the driven dog is going to keep going because it's comfy in its new lenses or is just going on despite the discomfort because the reward (work, play, whatever) is worth it. How long do you think it would take a dog to associate the putting in of the uncomfortable lenses with going to do something fun? And so then would the dog's reaction to discomfort be different? I wear contacts--sometimes when I put them in they irritate me. Sometimes when they've been in too long, I feel like I'd like to scratch them out. Someone looking at me, even someone who knows me well, might not know what's going through my head about the relative comfort or lack thereof of my contacts. Even a keen observer.

 

I say it's a shame that people want so badly to keep competing and winning/getting titles with a dog that they will push the dog beyond it's physical limits (and eyesight is a physical limit) for their own gratification. Despite Kristine's claims to the contrary, I don't know of a single driven dog (caveat: one that has also been taught to settle when it's necessary to do so) who couldn't adjust to a life of companionship. Having seen this sort of thing in other venues and with other animals, I am convinced it's just more of "do anything necessary to the animal in order to win" and then justify it by saying that the dog is happier that way. I don't buy it.

 

And somehow implying that only dull, unobservant people would fail to notice a dog's discomfort and do something about it when competition is on the line, let me just say: Big Lick Walkers, anyone? Arabs with ginger up their asses? Not dogs, granted, but if we'll use pain in other species in order to win, I don't see how one could argue that we wouldn't IGNORE pain to win competitions with another....

 

Sheena,

In response to your question about the working dog, I ignored the comments back then because I really just didn't feel like joining back in on this discussion. I'll probably be sorry I joined back in now, but I have a deadline later this week, so practicality of earning a living will prevent me from having much to say beyond what I've already said. FWIW, I would not argue for corrective lenses for a working dog either. When I read Eileen's post, I thought to myself, "That's really strange. Why would you do that?" But since her comments also implied that the dog wore them only briefly and apparently not for the purposes of competing, it didn't seem worth the effort to bring up the discussion. If someone were to come along now and advocate lenses (or even hearing aids) for working dogs, I would have the same opinion that I've already stated here. In fact, I think lenses for a working dog would be even riskier, since in real work situations (as opposed to trials) there are too many chances that something could happen to displace the lens, and as a result possibly damage the eye. It's just not worth it to me.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking a bit more about the idea that "if it benefited working dogs the response would be different".

 

No. Not to any ethical person that is involved for the right reasons. Dogs don't get worked at any cost. Sheesh, Kipp came up lame the other day and spent his night at SAR training cooped up in the back of my car while Kenzi worked. Was he happy about it? Nope - he would have gotten out and done something! Would it have been best for him? no, and that's why he stayed in the car.

 

Working dogs with health problems are washed from the program that they're in. Look at all the "career change" dogs that come out of reputable service dog schools. Dogs that have already had several thousand dollars and months or years of training put into prepping them for their job. Know how most of these dogs end up? well mannered pets. Yup, that puppy that has been everywhere, done everything in training for a service dog life is now just an active pet while a new pup comes and gets to go everywhere and do everything. The dogs adjust.

 

Life sucks sometimes. Sometimes dogs in their prime are no longer able to work. It happens. And if you need a working dog, you accept the fact that your current dog can't handle that job anymore and get another dog that can. Since I joined my SAR team I've seen two dogs in their prime washed due to health issues. Both dogs are now pets and new ones have taken their place.

 

It happens and working dog people that are in it for the right reasons seem pretty objective about even though it isn't easy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dogs like to do things with their humans, and if the HUMAN were willing to give up the sport, the dog would be happy to do so as well, as long as it was still doing SOMETHING with its human. From this POV, fitting a dog with contact lenses so that it can continue to compete really is more about the human's desires than the dog's.

 

 

I would have to agree with this.

 

I retired two promising agility dogs at a young age because of health issues, and since there is a finite number of dogs who can live here with me, I have not been able to do agility for 5 years. I missed it and I was sad.

 

However, my dogs were not. We did other stuff, and so long as they got to go with me they were happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I guess I just keep hoping that people will stop putting winning above all else.

 

I'd like to see that, as well. And, whether you choose to believe it or not, I am actually starting to see it more and more in the Agility world. There is a reason why venues that are more fun oriented and less competitive are being created. More and more people are using CU and other very dog oriented training programs. There is a paradigm shift happening. It is slower than I'd like to see (probably for reasons that are different than yours), and yes there are still plenty of highly competitive people. There always will be. At the same time, the idea that Agility should be fun and that the best interests of the dog should be foremost is gaining ground. The idea is out there.

 

At the same time, I personally don't want to see people quit out of hand when challenges arise. Of course, there are situations that merit quitting, or changing activities. There is also quite a lot to be gained, both by dog and handler, when keeping the needs of the dog as top priority is balanced with a healthy dose of perseverance and stick-to-it-ness. There are times to stay with it and rise above the challenges. For some that can be far more important than winning. I know, that sounds implausible. But there are such people involved in dog sports. Probably a lot more than one would expect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "more fun and less competive" venues are a double edged sword. For a time, we had a very active NADAC circuit. And then the folks hit elite and could not make their times and stopped Q'ing. These folks all bolted and went to a "more fun and less competative" venue (that is being taken very seriously).

 

Some people were not making their times due to training issues, some were not making their times because the dogs were old or unsound. And some people went to this venue because their dogs simply lacked the skills to compete in other venues.

 

So, this has been a double edged sword. While this "more fun and less competative" venue created a playground for all, it also created a playground where people who were not ready to trial could still Q and where old dogs and lame dogs could still Q. As I said in a previous post, a local trainer was running 2 lame dogs in the "More fun and less competative" venue and was recently rewarded with a beautiful championship ribbon earned by one of the lame dogs. This same dog would never in a million years have qualified for a championship title in any other venue. So, I see this as rewarding bad behavior.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "more fun and less competive" venues are a double edged sword. For a time, we had a very active NADAC circuit. And then the folks hit elite and could not make their times and stopped Q'ing. These folks all bolted and went to a "more fun and less competative" venue (that is being taken very seriously).

 

Some people were not making their times due to training issues, some were not making their times because the dogs were old or unsound. And some people went to this venue because their dogs simply lacked the skills to compete in other venues.

 

So, this has been a double edged sword. While this "more fun and less competative" venue created a playground for all, it also created a playground where people who were not ready to trial could still Q and where old dogs and lame dogs could still Q. As I said in a previous post, a local trainer was running 2 lame dogs in the "More fun and less competative" venue and was recently rewarded with a beautiful championship ribbon earned by one of the lame dogs. This same dog would never in a million years have qualified for a championship title in any other venue. So, I see this as rewarding bad behavior.

 

There are people who misuse pretty much any opportunity to do something enjoyable in life. Should that really ruin it for those who take advantage of those opportunities in a sensible and responsible manner?

 

I have responsibly enjoyed running my older mutt in such a venue. I have never run her when lame, now that she is ill she is not running anymore. The courses were at a level that provided a challenge for us as a team. She didn't have time to earn a championship, but if she had, it would have meant no less to me than the more prestigious titles in the super competitive venues would have meant if she had been that kind of a dog.

 

I'd hate to see Agility become a game of superstars only. I think it's great that it has become pretty much accessible to so many more teams and that there is a niche for the everyday all-around dog to go out and enjoy the game in an environment that is appropriate to that type of dog.

 

I guess it's one of my peeves, but I don't like to see those who would abuse an opportunity stink it up for those who are being responsible. I enjoy the less competitive venues, and I will always be grateful for the opportunity to run in such a venue with a dog who would not have been cut out for NADAC, AKC, or USDAA. And I'm glad to see others have that opportunity, as well.

 

Quite frankly, I don't see people at these trials running lame dogs. I've seen dogs pulled from competition for injury or illness. But I haven't seen anyone insist that the dog was going to run. Yes, there are people there who aren't ready to trial. They are getting fantastic experience that will help them to know what they need to do to prepare. I started out that way and it got me going. It's not the way everyone goes about getting started, but it's certainly not a crime. And as for older dogs, I say let them play until they are good and ready to stop. I will always be glad I did. I had no way to know last spring that I probably had Maddie at her last trials. I'm glad that I ran every single one while she was able and wanted to run. Her last run was a Q. No prestigious championship could ever top that. If running her because she is older, although she was healthy and happy to run at the time, was "bad behavior", so be it. I can't agree with that assessment, but if you think it is, then you think it is.

 

I'm not saying that nobody at these trials pushes their dogs or is ever irresponsible. That happens everywhere. I hardly think that is a good reason not to have venues where people can go out with their dogs, enjoy themselves, and accomplish something together. Even though there are those who will misuse the opportunity, I consider these venues to be an excellent thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many dogs get orthopedic surgery to correct an issue so that it can continue to compete or work (when that surgery is not need if the dog is retired)?

 

 

Contacts are much less invasive than surgery.

 

Corrective surgery, ok, but a tremendous difference in putting foreign objects in the dogs eyes daily. They may be less invasive, until they scratch, fall out, or otherwise damage or get damaged. Corrective surgery to *fix* the sight, I'd have less issue with that than I do with forcing foreign objects in the dogs eye in order to do *fun* things.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

However, surgery is permanent (which may include foreign objects) while contacts are not. If there is an issue with the contacts they can be removed; it's a bit more difficult to remove pins, screws, joints, etc. if there is an issue. In both cases (contacts and orthopedic appliances), the devices were developed to have minimal adverse effects on the body.

 

Come on folks, it's not like we're talking about a medical device that is new or untested. Contact lenses have been in use for decades.

 

We'll allow people to put braces on dog's joints to aid in playing sports (wraps on front legs during flyball), wrap feet to protect pads while working, surgery on joints to allow a dog to continue to perform at sports (instead of being retired); but contacts are a no no. This line between what is allowed and what is not is very fuzzy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many dogs get orthopedic surgery to correct an issue so that it can continue to compete or work (when that surgery is not need if the dog is retired)?

 

 

Contacts are much less invasive than surgery.

 

 

 

Mark, I'm guessing you're just playing devil's advocate again, but I'll take the bait anyway. The big difference I see between orthopedic surgery and contact lenses is one of "quality of life". (Though, to be honest, I've never had a dog that would have benefitted from contact lenses, so I'm only guessing for part of this). I think many dogs can enjoy a happy life if their vision is compromised. Sure, I can see why they might have to abandon agility or any other activity that relies on keen vision, but as Julie has pointed out, as long as you keep them active and engaged, they can be perfectly happy. But a dog with orthopedic issues may be in pain. May be unable to be maintain physical activity.

 

My brother's girlfriend had a dog that blew out its knee while fairly young. I'm not sure why (finances?), but they didn't have it operated on. Let me assure you, this dog did *not* enjoy a very high "quality of life" for the next decade it was alive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a big difference between "blowing out a knee" and coming up lame after sports due to a mild joint issue (or one that will heal and stay healed if retired).

 

A dog with a mild issue that is only aggravated during the exertion of sports or work could be retired without issue and have a high quality of life. Do we also show distain (like for contacts) for the owner of this type of dog when they have orthopedic surgery so that the dog can continue with sport or work?

 

One search and I easily found an example of an agility dog with a partial tear of an acl that after crate rest was okay until trying to get it back into condition to compete. This dog eventually needed surgery. Would that have been necessary if the dog had been retired after the initial partial tear? Surgery was needed to continue to play at sports; how is this different than needing contacts to avoid retirement?

 

I have no issues with opinions that if the dog needs artificial help to continue at work or sport (but would be fine if retired) it should be retired. But let's be consistent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Come on folks, it's not like we're talking about a medical device that is new or untested. Contact lenses have been in use for decades.

 

 

In humans yes, but not in dogs.

 

I don't think that comparing humans to dogs gives one a fair comparison. We rely on vision a great deal. Dogs, not so much. Watch a dog hunt for a ball in the grass. They might be within a couple feet of it and walk right past if the wind is in the wrong direction and they don't pick up on the scent. They're looking for it with their nose, not their eyes.

 

Now is it possible that research could be done that shows that dogs benefit greatly by the use of contacts? Sure. And I could be persuaded to change my position if I saw research proving that there was a benefit with minimal risk/discomfort to the dog. But as of now, the use of contact lenses in dogs is a still an unproven theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had surgery done on a foster dog to remove her cataracts and insert artificial lenses. She was coping as a visually impaired dog but clearly happier once she could see. She could have enjoyed life as a pet that went on walks and hikes, but she liked it better once she could chase toys as well. Was that wrong or cruel?

 

I don't think you can make a sweeping statement that applies to all situations. Each case must be examined individually. Sometimes fixing the dog really is in their best interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Corrective surgery, ok, but a tremendous difference in putting foreign objects in the dogs eyes daily. They may be less invasive, until they scratch, fall out, or otherwise damage or get damaged. Corrective surgery to *fix* the sight, I'd have less issue with that than I do with forcing foreign objects in the dogs eye in order to do *fun* things.

 

If it turns out that such lenses do fix the problem (and that determination is far from made), that could lead to the possibility of a corrective surgery, such as Liz described with her foster.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no issues with opinions that if the dog needs artificial help to continue at work or sport (but would be fine if retired) it should be retired. But let's be consistent.

I'm not sure where you're seeing this inconsistency. I personally can accept doing surgery if it's a quality of life issue (that is, the dog would be in pain or severely crippled if surgery were foregone). If the fix for the quality of life issue also means the dog can continue to work/compete, then lucky for the dog and its owner. But if surgery is a choice made ONLY so the dog can continue to compete (vs. being retired), then I personally wouldn't do it (at least not for those reasons). The sticky part then becomes defining quality of life. Treating an acute injury also isn't the same as using aids like contact lenses or hearing devices. I don't see any inconsistency in that thought process.

 

The issue, of course, is that things that can be a real help to an animal will be turned into a means for a HUMAN to continue to gain ego gratification, and that's my beef with the whole thing. In other words, it's not about what's best for the dog, but about the human's competitive desires. As I stated in a previous post, dogs like to do things with their humans. Even purpose bred dogs. I can't think of any job (game, etc.) a dog has that is so important that an owner SHOULD choose surgery or implants or devices over retirement. Seriously. You may believe differently, of course, but that doesn't make my own thought processes on this topic inconsistent.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In humans yes, but not in dogs.

 

I don't think that comparing humans to dogs gives one a fair comparison. We rely on vision a great deal. Dogs, not so much. Watch a dog hunt for a ball in the grass. They might be within a couple feet of it and walk right past if the wind is in the wrong direction and they don't pick up on the scent. They're looking for it with their nose, not their eyes.

 

Now is it possible that research could be done that shows that dogs benefit greatly by the use of contacts? Sure. And I could be persuaded to change my position if I saw research proving that there was a benefit with minimal risk/discomfort to the dog. But as of now, the use of contact lenses in dogs is a still an unproven theory.

We're not talking about how much one species utilizes eye sight as compared to another; we talking about if the biochemical and biomechanical interactions of eyes in these two species to contacts is different. At issue, for Journey, was the safety of contacts not the utility of contacts. In case you have forgotten, safety of medical devices for use in humans is always tested in animals first; surely we can use safety data in humans to predict safety in animals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If it turns out that such lenses do fix the problem (and that determination is far from made), that could lead to the possibility of a corrective surgery, such as Liz described with her foster.

And I don't really get this. Do we even completely understand how dogs see? And if not, then how can we be sure that corrective lenses (or surgery) is really beneficial to the dog?

 

The surgery for Liz's foster was to correct a quality of life issue, IMO. But as Liz notes, the dog could have had a perfectly happy life without the surgery. She didn't have the surgery done so that the dog could compete in agility or some other sport.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And I don't really get this. Do we even completely understand how dogs see? And if not, then how can we be sure that corrective lenses (or surgery) is really beneficial to the dog?

 

How will we know, or better understand, if we do not study and try different potential solutions? This actually could open doors to better understanding canine vision.

 

The surgery for Liz's foster was to correct a quality of life issue, IMO. But as Liz notes, the dog could have had a perfectly happy life without the surgery. She didn't have the surgery done so that the dog could compete in agility or some other sport.

 

Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, there are those who feel that participation in Agility does contribute to the quality of life of some dogs. I can say without the least hesitation that participation in Agility enhanced the quality of Maddie's life a thousandfold.

 

That's not to say she would have withered away and died without it, but she would have missed out on something that was a source of joy to her that you were not witness to.

 

I would not say this goes for all dogs - not even all of my own - but for some, yes.

 

I know this is difficult for someone outside of the actual context to grasp, but for those who have dogs that enjoy Agility, some do have an enhanced quality of life because Agility is part of their lives. The choice to go above and beyond in some way to enable the dog to continue to play can absolutely be the right one for some, while it would not be for others. The importance of continuing really is determined by the individual in the situation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know this is difficult for someone outside of the actual context to grasp, but for those who have dogs that enjoy Agility, some do have an enhanced quality of life because Agility is part of their lives. The choice to go above and beyond in some way to enable the dog to continue to play can absolutely be the right one for some, while it would not be for others. The importance of continuing really is determined by the individual in the situation.

Oh yes, I'm really just too dense to grasp your viewpoint. Seriously. I clearly have no concept of how playing a game can bring a dog joy. Sheesh. As I stated before, and apparently will have to continue to state for those who have difficulty grasping it, dogs enjoy doing things with their humans. A dog's joy from agility or flyball or hiking or fetching comes from doing it with the human and the obvious enjoyment the human also gets. Disagree all you want; impugn my ability to grasp a concept, but it won't change the fact that if your (or anyone else's) dog who enjoys a particular activity can no longer do THAT activity, the dog (and the human) shouldn't be able to find something else within the dog's physical means that also brings joy. Until your Maddie can tell yoou absolutely that her life would be meaningless without agility (vs., say, going on long hikes with you), I don't believe that one particular activity is the ONLY THING THAT WILL DO for any particular dog.

 

I have dogs who are purpose bred--it's in their genetic makeup to want to do what they do, and yes, it brings them joy. If anyone could make an argument about a dog NEEDING to do something, it would be folks who are using dogs for what they were created to do (regardless of breed). And yet, I still don't feel it's necessary to alter their bodies surgically or otherwise so that they can continue to enjoy what their genes tell them they should do. When you throw in an activity that a dog has to learn to like (dogs aren't born liking or wanting to do sports; they have no idea that such things exist, let alone have some idea that they'd love to do them--that's all human created), then I fail to see how one can claim that the dog will somehow pine for the loss of that activity IF the human is clever enough to come up with an appropriate substitute activity that the dog can also learn to love just as much. But then I am a bit too dull to grasp such difficult concepts I guess.

 

As for contact lenses, popping a pair in a dog's eyes to see if it jumps better isn't my idea of a controlled scientific study of vision problems and their possible solutions, but I suppose I may just be too dumb to understand that reasoning as well.

 

J.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...