|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Read Ragnar's "private" e-mail to me
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Read Ragnar's "private" e-mail to me
|
|
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM 2004-10-09, 2:08 am |
| I received the following e-mail from Ragnar, whom I consider to be a vulgar
person who lacks any ethics.
It's a mystery to me why he thinks I am his "buddy".
========================================================
I think you are getting better at directing your attacks rather than just
blasting away with a shotgun approach. You and Sandy need to blame the
doctors and facilities, not LASIK. In Sandy's case, she stupidly went to
court and started attacking the LASIK procedure. The procedure is fine,
it's the idiot doctors and shysters that cause the problems. I'm not up on
the early history of LASIK, but I think it was TLC that invented the corrupt
practices regarding using LASIK as a cash cow.
Dr. Gemoules makes me sick. What a hippocrite. LASIK is great when it's
paying his bills. What he does with contact lenses is quackery. NO OTHER
optometrist screws around with the wild contact lens treatments he does.
Did you see his comment where he takes an average of 46 months to fit a
patient with contacts? That would be laughable if it weren't so sickening.
It would be senseless to sue an OD though. They don't make enough money to
be bothered suing.
Have at them all you want. Pick on TLC too.. just try to seperate the
procedure from the people who misuse it.
One thing that I don't get and you might want to mention is that why on
earth would Tiger Woods go to TLC for his surgery? Probably because they
are a company large enough to pay him for an endorsement. In his case,
the problem isn't the results of his LASIK, the problem is his ethics in
being a paid endorser of the procedure. People will do anything for money.
It should be illegal for someone to be paid money for endorsing something.
If they want to endorse it, fine - but when they accept money for it, the
endorsement value is meaningless.
Here's something else that really bothers me. Just yesterday, Glenn came
out with the remark that "I (Glenn) have never recommended LASIK to
anyone". What??? That would be news to all those surgeons that he
collects thousands of dollars from every year for his referral services.
Curiously, that one group of doctors with a website of Dr. Marzchat
(misspelled) and some other Doctor also employs Dr. Rothman - who is one of
the most infamous high volume quacks going. The problem I have with that
website and that organization which is made up of about 5 centers in the
West is that ONE of the doctors is CRSQA certified, yet the website implys
that all the doctors and the facilities are CRSQA certified. That is highly
fraudulent. Even though I KNOW that only one of those doctors is CRSQA
certified, I'm not exactly sure which one it is nor could I find anything on
that website to indicate that only one of them is certified. Glenn has in
effect given his endorsement to all those doctors and facilities.
I would suggest that you continue to think about what you post and how it
will be used and interpreted before you hit that enter key.
In short, I think it would be good if you took the fundamental position of
LASIK is great.. but not when you go to a high volume LASIK mill or get
stuck with a doctor who is a liar and/or hippocrite and/or just plain crazy.
Minarik is clearly crazy. Gemoules is a hippocrite. I'm not sure what to
think of Glenn lately. He seems to be the apologist for everyone. There is
no right or wrong in his book.
__________________________________________________
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-09, 11:09 am |
| About half of that message is what I sent to Mr. Whacko trying to get
him to redirect his insanity. So much for that attempt.
The other half of "my" message is words added, changed, and deleted to
spice it up. Your version is much more exciting than mine is. I
bet you got an "A" in creative writing.
Now let's see... Brent has a 5 year history of insanity, lying,
deceiving, manipulating, spying and stalking. You can bet that
someone is going to believe him about this message.
He must have been up all night cooking this one up.
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:03:12 -0700, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM"
<brent@nospam_lasikfraud.com> wrote:
>I received the following e-mail from Ragnar, whom I consider to be a vulgar
>person who lacks any ethics.
>
>It's a mystery to me why he thinks I am his "buddy".
>
>========================================================
>
>I think you are getting better at directing your attacks rather than just
>blasting away with a shotgun approach. You and Sandy need to blame the
>doctors and facilities, not LASIK. In Sandy's case, she stupidly went to
>court and started attacking the LASIK procedure. The procedure is fine,
>it's the idiot doctors and shysters that cause the problems. I'm not up on
>the early history of LASIK, but I think it was TLC that invented the corrupt
>practices regarding using LASIK as a cash cow.
>
>Dr. Gemoules makes me sick. What a hippocrite. LASIK is great when it's
>paying his bills. What he does with contact lenses is quackery. NO OTHER
>optometrist screws around with the wild contact lens treatments he does.
>Did you see his comment where he takes an average of 46 months to fit a
>patient with contacts? That would be laughable if it weren't so sickening.
>It would be senseless to sue an OD though. They don't make enough money to
>be bothered suing.
>
>Have at them all you want. Pick on TLC too.. just try to seperate the
>procedure from the people who misuse it.
>One thing that I don't get and you might want to mention is that why on
>earth would Tiger Woods go to TLC for his surgery? Probably because they
>are a company large enough to pay him for an endorsement. In his case,
>the problem isn't the results of his LASIK, the problem is his ethics in
>being a paid endorser of the procedure. People will do anything for money.
>It should be illegal for someone to be paid money for endorsing something.
>If they want to endorse it, fine - but when they accept money for it, the
>endorsement value is meaningless.
>
>Here's something else that really bothers me. Just yesterday, Glenn came
>out with the remark that "I (Glenn) have never recommended LASIK to
>anyone". What??? That would be news to all those surgeons that he
>collects thousands of dollars from every year for his referral services.
>Curiously, that one group of doctors with a website of Dr. Marzchat
>(misspelled) and some other Doctor also employs Dr. Rothman - who is one of
>the most infamous high volume quacks going. The problem I have with that
>website and that organization which is made up of about 5 centers in the
>West is that ONE of the doctors is CRSQA certified, yet the website implys
>that all the doctors and the facilities are CRSQA certified. That is highly
>fraudulent. Even though I KNOW that only one of those doctors is CRSQA
>certified, I'm not exactly sure which one it is nor could I find anything on
>that website to indicate that only one of them is certified. Glenn has in
>effect given his endorsement to all those doctors and facilities.
>
> I would suggest that you continue to think about what you post and how it
>will be used and interpreted before you hit that enter key.
>
>In short, I think it would be good if you took the fundamental position of
>LASIK is great.. but not when you go to a high volume LASIK mill or get
>stuck with a doctor who is a liar and/or hippocrite and/or just plain crazy.
>Minarik is clearly crazy. Gemoules is a hippocrite. I'm not sure what to
>think of Glenn lately. He seems to be the apologist for everyone. There is
>no right or wrong in his book.
>__________________________________________________
>
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-09, 11:09 am |
| About half of that message is what I sent to Mr. Whacko trying to get
him to re-direct his insanity. So much for that attempt.
The other half of "my" message is words added, changed, and deleted to
spice it up. Your version is much more exciting than mine is. I
bet you got an "A" in creative writing.
Now let's see... Brent has a 5 year history of insanity, lying,
deceiving, manipulating, spying and stalking. You can bet that
someone is going to believe him about this message.
He must have been up all night cooking this one up.
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:03:12 -0700, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM"
<brent@nospam_lasikfraud.com> wrote:
>I received the following e-mail from Ragnar, whom I consider to be a vulgar
>person who lacks any ethics.
>
>It's a mystery to me why he thinks I am his "buddy".
>
>========================================================
>
>I think you are getting better at directing your attacks rather than just
>blasting away with a shotgun approach. You and Sandy need to blame the
>doctors and facilities, not LASIK. In Sandy's case, she stupidly went to
>court and started attacking the LASIK procedure. The procedure is fine,
>it's the idiot doctors and shysters that cause the problems. I'm not up on
>the early history of LASIK, but I think it was TLC that invented the corrupt
>practices regarding using LASIK as a cash cow.
>
>Dr. Gemoules makes me sick. What a hippocrite. LASIK is great when it's
>paying his bills. What he does with contact lenses is quackery. NO OTHER
>optometrist screws around with the wild contact lens treatments he does.
>Did you see his comment where he takes an average of 46 months to fit a
>patient with contacts? That would be laughable if it weren't so sickening.
>It would be senseless to sue an OD though. They don't make enough money to
>be bothered suing.
>
>Have at them all you want. Pick on TLC too.. just try to seperate the
>procedure from the people who misuse it.
>One thing that I don't get and you might want to mention is that why on
>earth would Tiger Woods go to TLC for his surgery? Probably because they
>are a company large enough to pay him for an endorsement. In his case,
>the problem isn't the results of his LASIK, the problem is his ethics in
>being a paid endorser of the procedure. People will do anything for money.
>It should be illegal for someone to be paid money for endorsing something.
>If they want to endorse it, fine - but when they accept money for it, the
>endorsement value is meaningless.
>
>Here's something else that really bothers me. Just yesterday, Glenn came
>out with the remark that "I (Glenn) have never recommended LASIK to
>anyone". What??? That would be news to all those surgeons that he
>collects thousands of dollars from every year for his referral services.
>Curiously, that one group of doctors with a website of Dr. Marzchat
>(misspelled) and some other Doctor also employs Dr. Rothman - who is one of
>the most infamous high volume quacks going. The problem I have with that
>website and that organization which is made up of about 5 centers in the
>West is that ONE of the doctors is CRSQA certified, yet the website implys
>that all the doctors and the facilities are CRSQA certified. That is highly
>fraudulent. Even though I KNOW that only one of those doctors is CRSQA
>certified, I'm not exactly sure which one it is nor could I find anything on
>that website to indicate that only one of them is certified. Glenn has in
>effect given his endorsement to all those doctors and facilities.
>
> I would suggest that you continue to think about what you post and how it
>will be used and interpreted before you hit that enter key.
>
>In short, I think it would be good if you took the fundamental position of
>LASIK is great.. but not when you go to a high volume LASIK mill or get
>stuck with a doctor who is a liar and/or hippocrite and/or just plain crazy.
>Minarik is clearly crazy. Gemoules is a hippocrite. I'm not sure what to
>think of Glenn lately. He seems to be the apologist for everyone. There is
>no right or wrong in his book.
>__________________________________________________
>
| |
|
| Funny, isn't it. I, for one, believe Hanson forwarded your email without
any editing on his part. Pretty despicable thing for him to do, but on
the other hand it is a pretty good example as to why I've told you that
I refuse to gossip about people behind their backs in private messages.
It always comes back to bite you somehow...
In article <vgrfm01aaj8n78fqgu3q7qgvrsvfquci88@4ax.com>,
Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> About half of that message is what I sent to Mr. Whacko trying to get
> him to re-direct his insanity. So much for that attempt.
> The other half of "my" message is words added, changed, and deleted to
> spice it up. Your version is much more exciting than mine is. I
> bet you got an "A" in creative writing.
>
> Now let's see... Brent has a 5 year history of insanity, lying,
> deceiving, manipulating, spying and stalking. You can bet that
> someone is going to believe him about this message.
>
> He must have been up all night cooking this one up.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-10, 12:06 am |
| RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:RTMD24-
CA1143.17421509102004@nycmny-nntp-rdr-03-ge0.rdc-nyc.rr.com:
> Funny, isn't it. I, for one, believe Hanson forwarded your email without
> any editing on his part. Pretty despicable thing for him to do, but on
> the other hand it is a pretty good example as to why I've told you that
> I refuse to gossip about people behind their backs in private messages.
> It always comes back to bite you somehow...
>
>
> In article <vgrfm01aaj8n78fqgu3q7qgvrsvfquci88@4ax.com>,
> Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
How ironic. Even Brent couldn't do more damage to the LASIK industry than
Ragnar is doing on his own. And Brent, for his part, has done a tremendous
disservice to the post-RS patients who suffer in silence.
Ragner, meet Brent. Brent, meet Ragnar.
Nobody but Brent controls Brent. But, I wonder who calls Ragnar's tune?
Hmmmmmmm.
Hey, Glenn. Any words of wisdom here?
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-10, 12:06 am |
|
>Hey, Glenn. Any words of wisdom here?
The only thing that comes to mind is to never wrestle with a pig. You
just get muddy and the pig enjoys it.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-10, 12:06 am |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
news:52ugm057laj7r6hmajb1nk71ahn3ruvs4h@4ax.com:
>
>
> The only thing that comes to mind is to never wrestle with a pig. You
> just get muddy and the pig enjoys it.
>
> Glenn Hagele
> Executive Director
> Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
> Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
> http://www.USAEyes.org
> http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
> I am not a doctor.
>
I was hoping you would say that!
Thanks,
DrG Oh, I almost forgot: O.D.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-10, 2:11 am |
| Funny how with Hanson's history, you are so willing to take him at his
word. That's fine with me.
You refuse to gossip behind backs because it always comes back to
bite... seems to me that you are the only one doing the biting.
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 21:42:16 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Funny, isn't it. I, for one, believe Hanson forwarded your email without
>any editing on his part. Pretty despicable thing for him to do, but on
>the other hand it is a pretty good example as to why I've told you that
>I refuse to gossip about people behind their backs in private messages.
>It always comes back to bite you somehow...
>
>
>In article <vgrfm01aaj8n78fqgu3q7qgvrsvfquci88@4ax.com>,
> Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-10, 2:11 am |
| On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:16:01 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in news:RTMD24-
>CA1143.17421509102004@nycmny-nntp-rdr-03-ge0.rdc-nyc.rr.com:
>
>
>How ironic. Even Brent couldn't do more damage to the LASIK industry than
>Ragnar is doing on his own. And Brent, for his part, has done a tremendous
>disservice to the post-RS patients who suffer in silence.
>
>Ragner, meet Brent. Brent, meet Ragnar.
>
>Nobody but Brent controls Brent. But, I wonder who calls Ragnar's tune?
>Hmmmmmmm.
>
>Hey, Glenn. Any words of wisdom here?
>
>DrG
I see that your identifying yourself as an OD lasted for just one
message. It would be nice if the people reading the newsgroup knew if
you were an ophthalmologist, optometrist, doctor of folk-dancing, etc.
Not that long ago, a much ballyhooed professor and phd turned out to
be a lawyer, not a physician.
It would also be good to identify yourself as Dr. Gemoules. The Dr.
Leukoma tag is misleading. You could be Leukoma, but as it stands,
Dr. Leukoma imples that there is a Dr. Leukoma. That's just not
right.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-10, 2:11 am |
| That is a brilliant line about the pig. Very concise and it gets the
idea across.
I'm glad to see that you didn't get dragged into the slop by
you-know-who. Every response you make to that person who is obsessed
with you results in a 2 month thread of attacks.
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:47:29 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
>The only thing that comes to mind is to never wrestle with a pig. You
>just get muddy and the pig enjoys it.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar Suomi 2004-10-10, 2:11 am |
| On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:51:01 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in
>news:52ugm057laj7r6hmajb1nk71ahn3ruvs4h@4ax.com:
>
>
>I was hoping you would say that!
>
>Thanks,
>
>DrG Oh, I almost forgot: O.D.
You remembered! Yay!
| |
|
| Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!
Sorry Rags but it looks like you got caught with ya pants down this time.
God and look who pulled them down . . . .
Wal
"Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM" <brent@nospam_lasikfraud.com> wrote in
message news:qd-dnSGWqov64vrcRVn-qQ@pghconnect.com...
> I received the following e-mail from Ragnar, whom I consider to be a
vulgar
> person who lacks any ethics.
>
> It's a mystery to me why he thinks I am his "buddy".
>
> ========================================================
>
> I think you are getting better at directing your attacks rather than just
> blasting away with a shotgun approach. You and Sandy need to blame the
> doctors and facilities, not LASIK. In Sandy's case, she stupidly went to
> court and started attacking the LASIK procedure. The procedure is fine,
> it's the idiot doctors and shysters that cause the problems. I'm not up
on
> the early history of LASIK, but I think it was TLC that invented the
corrupt
> practices regarding using LASIK as a cash cow.
>
> Dr. Gemoules makes me sick. What a hippocrite. LASIK is great when it's
> paying his bills. What he does with contact lenses is quackery. NO OTHER
> optometrist screws around with the wild contact lens treatments he does.
> Did you see his comment where he takes an average of 46 months to fit a
> patient with contacts? That would be laughable if it weren't so
sickening.
> It would be senseless to sue an OD though. They don't make enough money
to
> be bothered suing.
>
> Have at them all you want. Pick on TLC too.. just try to seperate the
> procedure from the people who misuse it.
> One thing that I don't get and you might want to mention is that why on
> earth would Tiger Woods go to TLC for his surgery? Probably because they
> are a company large enough to pay him for an endorsement. In his case,
> the problem isn't the results of his LASIK, the problem is his ethics in
> being a paid endorser of the procedure. People will do anything for
money.
> It should be illegal for someone to be paid money for endorsing something.
> If they want to endorse it, fine - but when they accept money for it, the
> endorsement value is meaningless.
>
> Here's something else that really bothers me. Just yesterday, Glenn came
> out with the remark that "I (Glenn) have never recommended LASIK to
> anyone". What??? That would be news to all those surgeons that he
> collects thousands of dollars from every year for his referral services.
> Curiously, that one group of doctors with a website of Dr. Marzchat
> (misspelled) and some other Doctor also employs Dr. Rothman - who is one
of
> the most infamous high volume quacks going. The problem I have with that
> website and that organization which is made up of about 5 centers in the
> West is that ONE of the doctors is CRSQA certified, yet the website implys
> that all the doctors and the facilities are CRSQA certified. That is
highly
> fraudulent. Even though I KNOW that only one of those doctors is CRSQA
> certified, I'm not exactly sure which one it is nor could I find anything
on
> that website to indicate that only one of them is certified. Glenn has in
> effect given his endorsement to all those doctors and facilities.
>
> I would suggest that you continue to think about what you post and how it
> will be used and interpreted before you hit that enter key.
>
> In short, I think it would be good if you took the fundamental position of
> LASIK is great.. but not when you go to a high volume LASIK mill or get
> stuck with a doctor who is a liar and/or hippocrite and/or just plain
crazy.
> Minarik is clearly crazy. Gemoules is a hippocrite. I'm not sure what to
> think of Glenn lately. He seems to be the apologist for everyone. There
is
> no right or wrong in his book.
> __________________________________________________
>
>
| |
|
| Caught with pants down? Although altered and spiced up, pretty much
all of that message was mentioned repeatedly in this newsgroup in the
past 10 days.
The only thing the post really reveals is that you can't send Hanson a
message without him trying to use it against you. Not only is he a
crazy, irrational malcontent who stalks people and tries to extort
money from people, he's also untrustworthy and his own worst enemy.
He's hopeless.
It's really sad how worthless this newsgroup has become. I expect
that it will descend into oblivion over the next year. I find that I
spend far to much time trying to put out the fires of irresponsible
posters.
On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 19:42:15 +1000, "Wal" <notmewally@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Ha Ha!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Sorry Rags but it looks like you got caught with ya pants down this time.
>
>God and look who pulled them down . . . .
>
>Wal
>
>
>"Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM" <brent@nospam_lasikfraud.com> wrote in
>message news:qd-dnSGWqov64vrcRVn-qQ@pghconnect.com...
>vulgar
>on
>corrupt
>sickening.
>to
>money.
>of
>highly
>on
>crazy.
>is
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-10, 11:10 am |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:volhm09sqnvgnkla0buf69408n64cd1c4o@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 23:16:01 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I see that your identifying yourself as an OD lasted for just one
> message. It would be nice if the people reading the newsgroup knew if
> you were an ophthalmologist, optometrist, doctor of folk-dancing, etc.
> Not that long ago, a much ballyhooed professor and phd turned out to
> be a lawyer, not a physician.
>
> It would also be good to identify yourself as Dr. Gemoules. The Dr.
> Leukoma tag is misleading. You could be Leukoma, but as it stands,
> Dr. Leukoma imples that there is a Dr. Leukoma. That's just not
> right.
Well, T.S.
DrG
| |
| Sandy 2004-10-10, 10:08 pm |
| Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<52tfm0h3ub62nddd2uebhnk28kl8q2jlcm@4ax.com>...
> About half of that message is what I sent to Mr. Whacko trying to get
> him to redirect his insanity. So much for that attempt.
> The other half of "my" message is words added, changed, and deleted to
> spice it up. Your version is much more exciting than mine is. I
> bet you got an "A" in creative writing.
Christopher (Ragnar) Roiland, I am curious. Which half do you claim
as yours? Do you really think that I was "stupid" for going to court,
or is it Brent who thinks that?
I just checked something on Yahoo:
Congratulations, the ID
christopherroiland
is available!
Why not sign up and use your own name when you post?
| |
|
| On Sun, 10 Oct 2004 13:20:53 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:volhm09sqnvgnkla0buf69408n64cd1c4o@4ax.com:
>
>
>Well, T.S.
>
>DrG
Someone's gotten all bent out of shape.
When people can't come up with something rational to say, they resort
to potty mouth.
I suppose abbreviating tough shit to T.S. makes it O.K. (which stands
for Old Kinderhook, which was a term used in the campaign of Martin
Van Buren)
It's revealing to see when you choose to use abbreviations. Once
again you have reverted back to the anonymous Dr. G signoff. Not an
OD today?
This is getting childish. Move on to some other subject.
| |
|
| I've covered this before several months ago.
The way you pursued your case was stupid. You presented all kinds of
attacks upon lasik, when you should have been presenting evidence that
your surgeon screwed up. There is nothing wrong with the lasik
procedure. By putting the blame on lasik, you took the blame off of
your surgeon.
Don't you wish you had gone elsewhere for your surgery?
On 10 Oct 2004 18:27:56 -0700, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>Ragnar Suomi <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<52tfm0h3ub62nddd2uebhnk28kl8q2jlcm@4ax.com>...
>
>Christopher (Ragnar) Roiland, I am curious. Which half do you claim
>as yours? Do you really think that I was "stupid" for going to court,
>or is it Brent who thinks that?
>
>I just checked something on Yahoo:
>
>Congratulations, the ID
>christopherroiland
>is available!
>
>Why not sign up and use your own name when you post?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| Bent out of shape or simply frustrated that reason falls upon deaf
ears.
If Greg Gemoules, OD wants to call himself on the Internet "DrG",
"Leukoma", or "Super Squirrel Bob, Savior Of The Universe", that is up
to him. It is more than easy enough to determine exactly who DrG is
or is not. Nobody is being bamboozled by DrG's nom de plume.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
|
| I agree.. he can call himself whatever he wants... just as long as
people realize that there is no Dr. Leukoma.
He doesn't want to tell people he's an optometrist either for some
reason. Don't ask me why.
On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Bent out of shape or simply frustrated that reason falls upon deaf
>ears.
>
>If Greg Gemoules, OD wants to call himself on the Internet "DrG",
>"Leukoma", or "Super Squirrel Bob, Savior Of The Universe", that is up
>to him. It is more than easy enough to determine exactly who DrG is
>or is not. Nobody is being bamboozled by DrG's nom de plume.
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>Council for Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:87qlm0127iddn7b9kmucdsr732najfl0en@4ax.com:
> I agree.. he can call himself whatever he wants... just as long as
> people realize that there is no Dr. Leukoma.
> He doesn't want to tell people he's an optometrist either for some
> reason. Don't ask me why.
I think that you read waaaaaay to much into it. There is a person who is
represented by the pseudonym I have been using since 1999. I don't see any
need to change it. Of course, you are more than welcome to remind people
whenever you want that I am an optometrist. If I have acknowledged it
once, I have said it 100 times. On sci.med.vision, there are doctors who
are optometrists who do not use their professional title.
You are making a side show, and are looking foolish for doing so.
DrG
>
>
>
> On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 19:22:36 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
> <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Sandy 2004-10-11, 10:08 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fdrjm0tote39mp03mpgsirnrqh1gs092ps@4ax.com>...
> I've covered this before several months ago.
> The way you pursued your case was stupid. You presented all kinds of
> attacks upon lasik, when you should have been presenting evidence that
> your surgeon screwed up.
You are 100% WRRRRRRRRRONNNNNNNGGGGGG, Fonzie. As I recall, I
compiled a list of approximately 32 things he did incorrectly.
> There is nothing wrong with the lasik
> procedure.
Dream on.
> By putting the blame on lasik, you took the blame off of
> your surgeon.
Not quite. If I'd done that, there would have been no settlement.
Who paid up the malpractice settlement? LASIK? or my surgeon?
> Don't you wish you had gone elsewhere for your surgery?
I wish my optometrist had been more careful and had known more about
it. If he had, he would never have referred me and I never would have
had lasik. Even if I had been a good candidate, I believe that if I
had understood prior to the decision to do it exactly what it does to
the cornea, I would not have risked my vision or compromised such a
fragile organ by having such a barbaric procedure.
| |
|
| You did it right here again... you just don't get it. You made a list
of what the surgeon supposedly did wrong... but you also went after
the LASIK procedure.
Who supposedly paid your settlement on those checks you altered? The
surgeon's insurance company.
You were so concerned about this surgeon.. that you took the money and
ran rather than go to trial. I'm sure you realize that had you gone
to trial, you would have lost.
Barbaric procedure? Funny how you studied refractive surgery since
the days of RK (1985?) and after all that time you decided on lasik.
I guess your research isn't worth 2 cents.
On 11 Oct 2004 17:54:32 -0700, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<fdrjm0tote39mp03mpgsirnrqh1gs092ps@4ax.com>...
>
>You are 100% WRRRRRRRRRONNNNNNNGGGGGG, Fonzie. As I recall, I
>compiled a list of approximately 32 things he did incorrectly.
>
>
>Dream on.
>
>
>Not quite. If I'd done that, there would have been no settlement.
>Who paid up the malpractice settlement? LASIK? or my surgeon?
>
>
>I wish my optometrist had been more careful and had known more about
>it. If he had, he would never have referred me and I never would have
>had lasik. Even if I had been a good candidate, I believe that if I
>had understood prior to the decision to do it exactly what it does to
>the cornea, I would not have risked my vision or compromised such a
>fragile organ by having such a barbaric procedure.
| |
|
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<0dimm0psvbn7ebmbp3ci96kd3flba7skfj@4ax.com>...
> You did it right here again... you just don't get it. You made a list
> of what the surgeon supposedly did wrong... but you also went after
> the LASIK procedure.
But I didn't do that in the lawsuit, moron.
>
> Who supposedly paid your settlement on those checks you altered? The
> surgeon's insurance company.
And my optometrist's insurance company. Why do you think they both
agreed to give me $125,000? Here, I will write it out for you: They
realized that their exposure was very high in my case. There was
blatant malpractice and consumer fraud. THEY didn't want my case to
go to trial.
> You were so concerned about this surgeon.. that you took the money and
> ran rather than go to trial. I'm sure you realize that had you gone
> to trial, you would have lost.
No, Christopher. My surgeon and optometrist's attorneys arranged the
settlement conference. I was ready for trial and wanted very badly to
see them in court. I wanted to see them try to defend their $$$$
arrangement and very clear lack of knowledge---both of them.
I settled for the maximum dollar amount I could have been awarded in
California. Because I am still working and my business endeavors are
more profitable than ever, I couldn't claim any economic damages.
Juries in my city are notoriously conservative. They are mostly
retired aerospace workers or the unemployed. My attorneys were
concerned that I'd get $20-30,000 at most. As you know, I got about
10 times that much by accepting the settlement, AND, most pleasing to
me, there was no gag order.
You really seem to be fighting a losing battle here lately,
Christopher Clifford Roiland.
> Barbaric procedure? Funny how you studied refractive surgery since
> the days of RK (1985?) and after all that time you decided on lasik.
> I guess your research isn't worth 2 cents.
Another of your lies. I never studied refractive surgery until after
I had lasik. Take a microscopic look at the corneal nerves after they
are sliced by a microkeratome.
Better yet, why don't you go wrestle a croc? You'd have a better
chance of winning than you do here.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2004 17:54:32 -0700, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>
| |
|
| > Take a microscopic look at the corneal nerves after they
> are sliced by a microkeratome.
Do you have a link to such a picture? I am interested in seeing it. I have
a slight irritation in my right eye that my surgeon implied was the effect
of severing these nerves. It seems to be getting less noticable as time
goes on, and I now notice it only occasionally.
| |
|
| Well, to begin with, you did do that in your lawsuit, but lets assume
that you didn't. You believed the procedure itself was flawed, but
put the blame on this doctor and put his practice in jeopardy?
That's not very nice.
On 16 Oct 2004 09:26:17 -0700, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<0dimm0psvbn7ebmbp3ci96kd3flba7skfj@4ax.com>...
>
>But I didn't do that in the lawsuit, moron.
>
>
>And my optometrist's insurance company. Why do you think they both
>agreed to give me $125,000? Here, I will write it out for you: They
>realized that their exposure was very high in my case. There was
>blatant malpractice and consumer fraud. THEY didn't want my case to
>go to trial.
>
>
>
>No, Christopher. My surgeon and optometrist's attorneys arranged the
>settlement conference. I was ready for trial and wanted very badly to
>see them in court. I wanted to see them try to defend their $$$$
>arrangement and very clear lack of knowledge---both of them.
>
>I settled for the maximum dollar amount I could have been awarded in
>California. Because I am still working and my business endeavors are
>more profitable than ever, I couldn't claim any economic damages.
>
>Juries in my city are notoriously conservative. They are mostly
>retired aerospace workers or the unemployed. My attorneys were
>concerned that I'd get $20-30,000 at most. As you know, I got about
>10 times that much by accepting the settlement, AND, most pleasing to
>me, there was no gag order.
>
>You really seem to be fighting a losing battle here lately,
>Christopher Clifford Roiland.
>
>
>
>Another of your lies. I never studied refractive surgery until after
>I had lasik. Take a microscopic look at the corneal nerves after they
>are sliced by a microkeratome.
>
>Better yet, why don't you go wrestle a croc? You'd have a better
>chance of winning than you do here.
>
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM 2004-10-17, 7:11 pm |
| Instead of arguing with this nut case, why don't you just post a link to
your web site of www.lasikdisaster.com? That way, if they want to see why
the nut case is wrong, they can click on the link to www.lasikdisaster.com
to read your story. Then they can follow the links on www.lasikdisaster.com
to other web sites such as www.lasikfraud.com, www.lasikinfocenter.net,
www.lasikreality.com, www.lasiksucks4u.com, www.lasikmemorial.com,
www.doctormyeye.com, and others.
"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote in message
news:1f704412.0410160826.49cc864@posting.google.com...
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:<0dimm0psvbn7ebmbp3ci96kd3flba7skfj@4ax.com>...
> You did it right here again... you just don't get it. You made a list
> of what the surgeon supposedly did wrong... but you also went after
> the LASIK procedure.
But I didn't do that in the lawsuit, moron.
>
> Who supposedly paid your settlement on those checks you altered? The
> surgeon's insurance company.
And my optometrist's insurance company. Why do you think they both
agreed to give me $125,000? Here, I will write it out for you: They
realized that their exposure was very high in my case. There was
blatant malpractice and consumer fraud. THEY didn't want my case to
go to trial.
> You were so concerned about this surgeon.. that you took the money and
> ran rather than go to trial. I'm sure you realize that had you gone
> to trial, you would have lost.
No, Christopher. My surgeon and optometrist's attorneys arranged the
settlement conference. I was ready for trial and wanted very badly to
see them in court. I wanted to see them try to defend their $$$$
arrangement and very clear lack of knowledge---both of them.
I settled for the maximum dollar amount I could have been awarded in
California. Because I am still working and my business endeavors are
more profitable than ever, I couldn't claim any economic damages.
Juries in my city are notoriously conservative. They are mostly
retired aerospace workers or the unemployed. My attorneys were
concerned that I'd get $20-30,000 at most. As you know, I got about
10 times that much by accepting the settlement, AND, most pleasing to
me, there was no gag order.
You really seem to be fighting a losing battle here lately,
Christopher Clifford Roiland.
> Barbaric procedure? Funny how you studied refractive surgery since
> the days of RK (1985?) and after all that time you decided on lasik.
> I guess your research isn't worth 2 cents.
Another of your lies. I never studied refractive surgery until after
I had lasik. Take a microscopic look at the corneal nerves after they
are sliced by a microkeratome.
Better yet, why don't you go wrestle a croc? You'd have a better
chance of winning than you do here.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> On 11 Oct 2004 17:54:32 -0700, sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote:
>
news:<fdrjm0tote39mp03mpgsirnrqh1gs092ps@4ax.com>...[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
|
| This is very interesting. it's a reply from Hanson to RM... yet it's
identical to a reply from Keller to RM. Seems like those two are
sometimes posting as each other. Weird.
Anyway, I have pointed out at least 4 times that RM and Ragnar Suomi
are one in the same. It's a problem with RoadRunner which forces me
to use my Easynews account to post messages. If RoadRunner doesn't
fix their problem soon, I will probably change my easynews alias to
Ragnar Suomi.
Here's something to notice about our malcontent Hanson, as I said, I
have pointed out the RM/Ragnar situation at least 4 times, yet he
ignores the explanation and keeps harping on the situation. This is a
fundamental problem of his. He ignores anything that doesn't fit into
his twisted reality.
On Sun, 17 Oct 2004 11:38:41 -0700, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.COM"
<brent@nospam_lasikfraud.com> wrote:
>Instead of arguing with this nut case, why don't you just post a link to
>your web site of www.lasikdisaster.com? That way, if they want to see why
>the nut case is wrong, they can click on the link to www.lasikdisaster.com
>to read your story. Then they can follow the links on www.lasikdisaster.com
>to other web sites such as www.lasikfraud.com, www.lasikinfocenter.net,
>www.lasikreality.com, www.lasiksucks4u.com, www.lasikmemorial.com,
>www.doctormyeye.com, and others.
>
>
>"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote in message
>news:1f704412.0410160826.49cc864@posting.google.com...
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:<0dimm0psvbn7ebmbp3ci96kd3flba7skfj@4ax.com>...
>
>But I didn't do that in the lawsuit, moron.
>
>
>And my optometrist's insurance company. Why do you think they both
>agreed to give me $125,000? Here, I will write it out for you: They
>realized that their exposure was very high in my case. There was
>blatant malpractice and consumer fraud. THEY didn't want my case to
>go to trial.
>
>
>
>No, Christopher. My surgeon and optometrist's attorneys arranged the
>settlement conference. I was ready for trial and wanted very badly to
>see them in court. I wanted to see them try to defend their $$$$
>arrangement and very clear lack of knowledge---both of them.
>
>I settled for the maximum dollar amount I could have been awarded in
>California. Because I am still working and my business endeavors are
>more profitable than ever, I couldn't claim any economic damages.
>
>Juries in my city are notoriously conservative. They are mostly
>retired aerospace workers or the unemployed. My attorneys were
>concerned that I'd get $20-30,000 at most. As you know, I got about
>10 times that much by accepting the settlement, AND, most pleasing to
>me, there was no gag order.
>
>You really seem to be fighting a losing battle here lately,
>Christopher Clifford Roiland.
>
>
>
>Another of your lies. I never studied refractive surgery until after
>I had lasik. Take a microscopic look at the corneal nerves after they
>are sliced by a microkeratome.
>
>Better yet, why don't you go wrestle a croc? You'd have a better
>chance of winning than you do here.
>
>news:<fdrjm0tote39mp03mpgsirnrqh1gs092ps@4ax.com>...
>
| |
| Sandy 2004-10-20, 11:12 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<n5t2n0pvn5eucuilbbscu1pdf489ktj2gf@4ax.com>...
> Well, to begin with, you did do that in your lawsuit, but lets assume
> that you didn't. You believed the procedure itself was flawed, but
> put the blame on this doctor and put his practice in jeopardy?
> That's not very nice.
Christopher Roiland, you are really going off the deep end. What
damaged my surgeon's case more than anything was that my OD blamed
him. He blamed my OD. As soon as they did that, everyone realized
that it was time to put a dollar figure on the mess. They are
responsible for jeopardizing their practices by their lies, greed and
incompetence. You are trying to paint my surgeon the victim?????
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-20, 7:11 pm |
| sandy@savvysneaks.com (Sandy) wrote in
news:1f704412.0410200808.6bdde5a@posting.google.com:
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:<n5t2n0pvn5eucuilbbscu1pdf489ktj2gf@4ax.com>...
>
> Christopher Roiland, you are really going off the deep end. What
> damaged my surgeon's case more than anything was that my OD blamed
> him. He blamed my OD. As soon as they did that, everyone realized
> that it was time to put a dollar figure on the mess. They are
> responsible for jeopardizing their practices by their lies, greed and
> incompetence. You are trying to paint my surgeon the victim?????
>
This is the chasm of co-management that med-mal attorneys can exploit to
their advantage.
DrG
|
| |
|
|