I agree Brittany Man, and I have already attempted to do just that when I said "I suppose , in retrospect, they could have been prescription (with a very "mild" correction). I had just always assumed they weren't, as they did not seem to be at the time. However, from here on out I will adjust my evaluation of them to accommodate that possibility."
Exactly how, and why, should I do a better job of apologizing to Randolph? Show me a better way and I will consider it. There is no way for me to go back and look at the glasses again. I still maintain they were not prescriptions as I have put on many pairs of others' prescription glasses and seen the terrible distortion they give. The Randolphs I tried were not any where near that bad, but were definitely worse than any Pillas, or even a cheap pair of Remingtons, I ever wore. But, even with that in mind, I have accepted and agreed that I could have been wrong and they could have been prescription. Are you and Brent on the board of directors of Randolph, or do you have interest in the company? To defend any company like you are seemingly doing would suggest that you believe they cannot possibly sell a set of glasses that are not perfect. Do you (plural) really believe that?
I'm concerned that I will lose much sleep going forward over the possibility of getting sued.
