Goodbye Dollond & Aitchison

Snooze

boyse7en wrote: »

Going for an eye test every two years is not exactly onerous, and while some of the conditions people of mentioned are rare, they can have serious consequences.

Cancer can also have "serious consequences" but you still wouldn't go to a docs every 2 years to check for it if you were feeling perfectly fine.

Rob

Really2

Snooze wrote: »

I'm seriously beginning to worry about your own eyesight Really2 :eek: after this thread and the others you've replied on this afternoon. Seems you have some serious issues yourself - it might be a brain tumour and you might



:eek:

Rob

As stated I do have a history of glaucoma in my family so blindenss is a very real risk. My farther may well be blind in the next 10 years. Pr!ck.

Telling somone they are not sensible for not going to an eye test is not ripping them apart it is fact.

What 1/2 hour & £27 every two years. Or the chance of not working or seeing for the rest of your life.

Grow up man you are a real idiot today.

PS the quot you did missed out a bit.

kai666 wrote: »

no offense, but thats just stupid...

boyse7en

Snooze wrote: »

Cancer can also have "serious consequences" but you still wouldn't go to a docs every 2 years to check for it if you were feeling perfectly fine.

Rob

Of course I would, given the option. Ten minutes to find out I had a disease that, in its early stages, is treatable would be a time well spent. Why do your think they have breast-screening and cervical smear tests for women?

moneysavinmonkey

Snooze wrote: »

!!!!!!?

I'm not "discouraging" anyone any more than you are "encouring" them! My opinion is that if your eyes aren't causing you any bother then I see no reason to go for an eye test when I've got better things to do with my time. I am entitled to that opinion just as you are entitled to your opinion of telling people to go for an eye test every other day in case they may have a brain tumour.

What are you having a go at me for? You've had your say, I've had mine. Deal with it.

Rob

I've given my reasons clearly supported by actual facts and my own experience, your reason seems to be only "that's my opinion" which itself is based on on complete ignorance of what an eye exam involves, the risks in not having one, and the frequency it is needed.

If you've got better things to do with your time than having a quick eye test - which you probably could of had done in the time you've been posting pointless nonsense on here - then I suggest you go do them!

I had a hellish time when I though I was going to loose my sight through my own lazyiness. It was not a nice experience, and scared the bejeezers out of me and my family. I'm very lucky that there was no serious consequence. Of course having that experience is going to make me want to encourage people to have eye tests - I'd hate for anyone to go through the same thing I did.

I'm replying to your posts, even though I'm fully aware you are just doing them to wind people up, because 'imho' your contribution is at best worthless and potentially harmful. You said yourself you were 'missing something' in your original advice to PN.

Snooze

moneysavinmonkey wrote: »

You said yourself you were 'missing something' in your original advice to PN.

Yes, and I corrected it holding my hand up admitting that I hadn't been previously aware of what they could find out. However, that still doesn't excuse the cheap insults thrown at PN for choosing not to have an eye test done and nor do a couple of bad experiences from you and that OP mean that everyone must immediately jump in their motors and go and get an eye test done because if you don't you'll be blind tomorrow, which is what the tone of the posts basically said. :rolleyes:

The majority of people will only get their eyes looked at when they're having problems seeing out of them. Scaremongering people into it by telling them horror stories is not to way to go about it and neither is throwing cheap insults at people simply because they don't conform to your way of thinking.

Rob

Really2

Snooze wrote: »

Yes, and I corrected it holding my hand up admitting that I hadn't been previously aware of what they could find out. However, that still doesn't excuse the cheap insults thrown at PN for choosing not to have an eye test done and nor do a couple of bad experiences from you and that OP mean that everyone must immediately jump in their motors and go and get an eye test done because if you don't you'll be blind tomorrow, which is what the tone of the posts basically said. :rolleyes:

The majority of people will only get their eyes looked at when they're having problems seeing out of them. Scaremongering people into it by telling them horror stories is not to way to go about it and neither is throwing cheap insults at people simply because they don't conform to your way of thinking.

Rob

There is no bigger fool than a blind fool (especialy through lazyness and a won't happen to me attitude)

nedmundo

beaujolais-nouveau wrote: »

I like your contributions to this forum, PasturesNew, so I've logged on just to reply on this.

The best argument for having your eyes tested is retinitis pigmentosa (RP). RP can be detected by an eye test in the very earliest stages and then (I understand) treated with eye drops. However, by the time you notice that your sight is deteriorating due to RP (which will be about 10 years after it actually started deteriorating) it is impossible to save your sight, and you will go blind.

http://www.brps.org.uk/index.php?tln=aboutrp

What a daft post - Ret Pig is untreatable!!! How about glaucoma, cataracts, vascular disorders and ocular tumours!

baileysbattlebus

My sister has high blood pressure - heriditary - potentially fatal - spotted by the optician during an eye test. He suggested she visit her GP and get her blood pressure taken. The result, she's on medication for the rest of her life, but better that than a stroke or something.

BettiePage

We go to the dentist for a check-up so what's the difference? I'd rather lose my teeth and need false ones (though the screw-in ones rather than the removable ones) than lose my eyesight.

sillyvixen

Running_Horse wrote: »

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/retailandconsumer/4388348/Dollond-and-Aitchison-disappers-from-the-high-street-with-Boots-Opticians-merger.html

Once they were number one, in fact the only truly national chain. Not sure if they were victims of recession, or mismanagement, and aiming too high in terms of quality and price.

this thread has gone a bit off track - the whys and wherefores of having your eyes tested lie elsewhere on these boards. D&A have not been a british chain for nearly 10 years they were bought out by an italian company just under 10 years ago - boots also have had italian heritage for for the last few years!!

the deal is a merger not a take over and has very little to do with the ressesion - a joint partnership split 60/40 between allience boots and de rigo (D&A) gets them a joint bigger marketshare and puts them 2nd in optical marketing in the uk (also providing a bigger sales area for de rego frames!! boots want a more stand alone optical retail sector (rather than the master of all trades reputation they have now) merging with another company makes this more achievable. very little will change currently - but the future changes have yet to be decided as the discission to go public was taken due to a leek to the press!! at the end of the day both companies stand to gain by mutual co-operation and shared resourses.