Some of us studied hard in all our classes and clinical rotations, keep up to date, weigh "research" skeptically in light of what we see in practice, don't fall for fads, and there are many specialties that expose us to a wide spectrum and considerable depth of problems in many areas. It is possible that I am one of those doctors. Maybe not. I have given you good advice.

You want your doctor to be honest. You should reciprocate that expectation by being honest yourself.  You are now seeing a doctor for the third time because you are worried. As best I can tell from your postings, your worry (not an active medical problem) is your concern, so put it up front. Being coy serves no purpose. Being abrasive serves no purpose. Re-read the Golden Rule.

Like I said, no one should be going to the doctor for a common cold, except in exceptional circuмstances such as the immunocompromised, those on chemotherapy, for example, where what is usually an insignificant malady could be life threatening, and such patients should certainly not expect their eye specialist to deal with it! Similarly, those who develop more worrying symptoms like your ED case. But as Giovanni said, he was only using the cold to make a point. No snarking or platitudes intended.

Perhaps you'd be surprised at the thousands of times my polite and detailed explanations that antibiotics are not needed for a "self-limited viral U.R.I." have fallen on deaf ears.

It will work out either way. Your life, your call. I hope my advice helped. If you have any questions after your repeat visit, I'll keep my eye out for this thread next week. I'll help if I can.

In these days where the medical profession has been rapidly swirling down the toilet, a healthy (pun intended) dose of skepticism is warranted, even life-saving. That said, too often here on CI unhealthy, life-threatening cases of excessive skepticism erupt, arguably life-threatening because they descend into antagonistic throw-the-baby-out-with-the bathwater quackery.

I try to keep my balance by reminding myself of the analogy that practicing Catholics ("trads") are hated because of the misdeeds of nominal Catholics. Analogously, good doctors are hated because of the misdeeds of bad doctors. Neither good Catholics nor good doctors deserve the opprobrium; but we deal with it. It's just a part of life.

Be well and be good. In this morning's on-the-way-to work Rosary, I will ask the patron saints of physicians to guide your doctor at your appointment next week, so that he gives you what you need.

I wanted to post an update. Thank you.
 
 I had my appointment yesterday, and it went very well.  My original intention was to wait until the end of the appointment to tell her about the other doctor's findings.  Before going in the office, it did occur to me that I may not have a choice (but I can’t remember why that thought came to me).  It's good that I had that thought because it prepared me.

The doctor started by asking me when my last exam was AND who the doctor was. So, since I had to give her that information, I felt that I needed to tell her the whole thing. She was great about it all.... very professional. I made it very clear that I really liked the other doctor, but that I thought it odd that my retired doctor never said anything in 15 years about acute angles.  She responded that they could change over time, but that it is less common for someone with such near-sightedness.  She was actually quite interested to have a look-see.
 
 Long story short, she did confirm that I do have acute angles; however, she did say that if it were her, she probably wouldn't have mentioned it to me.  Apparently, I'm not at a point where this is an immediate concern.  To be fair, the other doctor also said he didn't foresee me having an issue soon, but, outside of that, he seemed to make such a big deal of it, including providing me with a printed card with possible symptoms of Acute Angle Closure Glaucoma.
 
 Anyway, I really liked her, so I am considering switching to her.  But the other doctor is only 5 minutes away and she is about 30.  And to be fair, he was not wrong.  Of course, the local hospital is only 5 minutes away as well, so if I were to have symptoms in the future, the hospital ER is always right around the corner.
 
 Some other differences I noticed between the doctors was that she seemed to do what is needed rather than doing anything "extra".  The other doctor had me in the office for about an hour and a half.  I honestly have never had an eye examination take that long.  I think because of the acute angle finding, he also billed for a "special eye evaluation". Is he just very thorough?  Conservative?  Or is there more to it? Unfortunately, my suspicious nature has me wondering.
 
 Knowing all of this, if you or anyone else has any advice on which doctor I should go with, that would be great.

Good to hear! I would stick with the second doctor.