|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > Ragnar
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]
|
|
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-10, 7:10 pm |
| I think that the consensus is that this NG would be better off without
Ragnar. It would also be better off without the spam, self-absorption and
outright libel that characterize many of the posts.
If we could hold ourselves to a commmon standard of decency, I think quite
a lot could be accomplished here.
DrG
| |
|
| >I think that the consensus is that this NG would be better off without
> Ragnar. It would also be better off without the spam, self-absorption and
> outright libel that characterize many of the posts.
Ah, come on now. Whether you hate him or not, you gotta admit that this NG
would grow silent and borring without him. Every NG needs a Ragnar to spice
things up...
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-10, 10:08 pm |
| "sl" <sleach@bak.rr.com> wrote in
news:B5adnW2K5-PbQfTcRVn-sg@giganews.com:
>
>
> Ah, come on now. Whether you hate him or not, you gotta admit that
> this NG would grow silent and borring without him. Every NG needs a
> Ragnar to spice things up...
>
>
Spice is one thing, but what Ragnar has been doing of late is quite
another. Can there not be a happy medium?
DrG
| |
| Rebecca 2004-10-11, 2:08 am |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957EB142F74ECdrgleukomacom@204.127.204.17>...
> I think that the consensus is that this NG would be better off without
> Ragnar. It would also be better off without the spam, self-absorption and
> outright libel that characterize many of the posts.
What he said.
>
> If we could hold ourselves to a commmon standard of decency, I think quite
> a lot could be accomplished here.
That's a lot to ask of an unmoderated group. But, one never knows.
| |
|
| On 10 Oct 2004 20:16:00 -0700, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca)
wrote:
>"Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote in message news:<Xns957EB142F74ECdrgleukomacom@204.127.204.17>...
>
>What he said.
>
>
>That's a lot to ask of an unmoderated group. But, one never knows.
I would love to stop posting so much, if not at all. Unfortunately
there isn't one LASIK surgeon who posts messages here.
Even the people who know what they are talking about here lack the
degree in ophthalmology.
Until your website got taken over by a load of nuts, it was a nice
place to get information.
BTW, while it's on my mind. A few days ago someone mentioned a lady
who lost her $300,000 per year job as a result of her eye problems.
I'd like to know just what job pays $300,000 per year and why the
problems forced her out of her job.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-11, 11:09 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:opckm01dmtu4sidurp4vgtsm16hqjrkn5t@4ax.com:
>
> BTW, while it's on my mind. A few days ago someone mentioned a lady
> who lost her $300,000 per year job as a result of her eye problems.
> I'd like to know just what job pays $300,000 per year and why the
> problems forced her out of her job.
I have several stories. Would you like to hear them, Ragnar?
DrG
| |
| Rebecca 2004-10-11, 11:09 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opckm01dmtu4sidurp4vgtsm16hqjrkn5t@4ax.com>...
> Until your website got taken over by a load of nuts, it was a nice
> place to get information.
"My" website (www.lasermyeye.org) has not changed since it was
launched a year and a half ago, other than the occasional addition of
a new article or two. All "information" on the website, with the
exception of articles contributed by guests in the context of the
ezine (KeratoScoop), has the same author.
The moderated bulletin board (D'Eyealogues, at
www.lasermyeye.org/forums) welcomes participation from patients and
others - so long as they comply with the terms of use. I have a
topnotch team of moderators who I think do an excellent job of
ensuring that that the rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| In no way do I subscribe to Ragnar's characterization of the
LaserMyEye website, but the public forum within a website can quickly
color the casual reader's opinion of the entire website.
Even if the owner doesn't directly create - or even agree with - the
posts on the bulletin board, the entire website will suffer the
implications of those posts. No, a website probably should not be
negatively measured by the content of its bulletin board, but the
demise of SurgicalEyes should be a lesson learned.
Of course, an entire website can be buoyed by a creative and
appropriately moderated bulletin board. Look at AskLasikDocs as an
example.
As one who believes a moderated (and moderate) refractive surgery
related bulletin board is sorely needed, I only hope for the continued
success of the LaserMyEye forum and have great empathy for those
unappreciated soles responsible for moderating its content.
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.
| |
|
| On Mon, 11 Oct 2004 12:53:17 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:opckm01dmtu4sidurp4vgtsm16hqjrkn5t@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>I have several stories. Would you like to hear them, Ragnar?
>
>DrG
If it's the story about the lady with the $300,000 job, sure. If
it's another threat to flood the group with garbage, no thanks.
I see you don't agree that someone posting as a doctor but using a
false name isn't a problem. That's fine by me. But it's critical
that people realize that Dr. Leukoma is a ficticious name.
| |
|
| The appearance of your website has changed entirely, and you have
added a lot of trash to it. The disclaimer alone is now about 8000
words.
"TopNotch" where have we heard that term before? That's the famous
SE term..
Since you inherited that cast of loonies from SE, it's appropriate to
refer to them as "TopNotch".
I would ask anybody reading this not to visit that website and see for
yourselves what a cast of malcontent clowns dwell there.
On 11 Oct 2004 07:37:16 -0700, rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca)
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opckm01dmtu4sidurp4vgtsm16hqjrkn5t@4ax.com>...
>
>
>"My" website (www.lasermyeye.org) has not changed since it was
>launched a year and a half ago, other than the occasional addition of
>a new article or two. All "information" on the website, with the
>exception of articles contributed by guests in the context of the
>ezine (KeratoScoop), has the same author.
>
>The moderated bulletin board (D'Eyealogues, at
>www.lasermyeye.org/forums) welcomes participation from patients and
>others - so long as they comply with the terms of use. I have a
>topnotch team of moderators who I think do an excellent job of
>ensuring that that the rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| >... and have great empathy for those
>unappreciated soles responsible for moderating its content.
Whoops! Yes, it should be "souls". No inference to being walked on
is implied. 8^)
| |
| serebel 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| rebeccaNO_SPAM@lasermyeye.org (Rebecca) wrote in message news:<120ffab4.0410110637.3cb583d5@posting.google.com>...
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<opckm01dmtu4sidurp4vgtsm16hqjrkn5t@4ax.com>...
>
>
> "My" website (www.lasermyeye.org) has not changed since it was
> launched a year and a half ago, other than the occasional addition of
> a new article or two. All "information" on the website, with the
> exception of articles contributed by guests in the context of the
> ezine (KeratoScoop), has the same author.
>
> The moderated bulletin board (D'Eyealogues, at
> www.lasermyeye.org/forums) welcomes participation from patients and
> others - so long as they comply with the terms of use. I have a
> topnotch team of moderators who I think do an excellent job of
> ensuring that that the rules are enforced consistently and fairly.
Okay, what if I posted something as a matter of opinion that some of
the others strongly disagreed with? For instance, I disagree with many
of "Scientist's" rants and blanket condemnations. What would happen?
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-11, 7:10 pm |
| >Okay, what if I posted something as a matter of opinion that some of
>the others strongly disagreed with? For instance, I disagree with many
>of "Scientist's" rants and blanket condemnations. What would happen?
>
>SErebel
I'll answer that: If it is accurate and appropriately presented, it
will remain. You may want to try sometime, SErebel, but don't even
think about changing Scientist's opinion.
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.
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-12, 7:08 am |
| A little birdie told me some guy in this alt group was spewing some
fairly smelly chunks. When I read his post above, I just had to get a
Google account, along with an appropriate login, so I could hang a big
ol' sign around this loser's neck. First I poked around to read some
of his other posts, and with the help of industrial-strength
analgesics, ended up reading about an hour's worth. I noticed that
"RM" also goes by "Ragnar Suomi". Also noticed he's made some of
these same delusional claims about LaserMyEye before, and was promptly
refuted by someone who knew what they were talking about. Also
noticed he's a poster boy for Dipshits Of America (DOA), and has got
some serious hots for "DrG". Must be the OD title that turns him on.
But I digress. I'm a professional graphic designer. In March of 2003
I started design work on LaserMyEye.org for Rebecca, and the site was
launched in June of that year. Over time, more content was added to
various sections. In June of this year, KeratoScoop (e-zine) and
D'Eyealogues (bulletin board) were added.
Let's examine a few of the more putrid chunks of Ragnar's "technicolor
yawn":
-->"The appearance of your website has changed entirely."<--
False. Do you have anything other than your addlepated memory to back
up your claim, Ragnar? Of course you don't. The site design has not
changed, period. But I'll let the rest of this NG in on a little
secret. At Rebecca's behest, I am, even now, hard at work on a
re-design of LaserMyEye. Should be fully implemented and public in a
few weeks. Content will be mostly the same, but much more is coming,
as Rebecca feeds it to me. I fully expect that when the re-design is
launched, Ragnar will be start a thread here titled, "See! Didn't I
tell you it had changed entirely?"
-->"You have added a lot of trash to it."<--
True. In fact, the entire site is full of "trash", which should be a
signal to all reasonable people to check it out immediately.
Seriously, if a grade-A moron like Ragnar called LaserMyEye anything
BUT "trash", I'd urge Rebecca to sue him for libel. And just imagine
what would happen to her reputation if word got out that Ragnar was
promoting LaserMyEye. She'd shut it down in a heartbeat to avoid that
kind of PR disaster.
-->"The disclaimer alone is now about 8000 words."<--
False. Currently it's just under 5000. Initial text was about 2800,
and it has grown as the needs of the site dictated. For instance,
over 1300 words were added when D'Eyealogues was launched, mostly to
scare off brain-dead bozos like yourself who spent a bit too much time
hunched over the glue bottle. The word count is inflated because
Rebecca invested the time necessary to couch it in terms
understandable to humans possessing at least 4 functioning brain cells
(and maybe even to you as well, Ragnar). Rebecca ain't no dummy.
Pretty please, do this for me, Ragnar: launch your own informational
site with a 50-word TOU on it. Your sorry butt would be hauled into
court in about six minutes by your own miserable progeny, and I'd be
munching popcorn in the gallery.
-->"I would ask anybody reading this not to visit that website and see
for yourselves what a cast of malcontent clowns dwell there."<--
I'm going to suggest to Rebecca that she use your statement for
promotional materials. "RAGNAR DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE LASERMYEYE!"
All the spinmeisters of Madison Avenue put together couldn't dream up
such compelling advertising. The only trouble is that I don't think
Rebecca could afford the bandwidth that such a stampede of visitors
would require. In the meantime, I'd suggest that anybody reading this
check out http://www.lasermyeye.org/. Dig through the mountains of
reference info. Peek at KeratoScoop. Poke around D'Eyealogues, and
notice that while you will certainly find a range of opinions,
including some that appear to me to be marginally rational, not one of
them is from Ragnar. He obviously prefers to hang out where his BS
won't be moderated out of existence -- proof of "topnotch moderators"
on LaserMyEye, BTW.
I don't know much about LASIK, etc., so I can't tell how many
LASIK-related chunks Ragnar has spewed in this NG. But holy schmoly
-- if his mindset is so twisted that he can't even accurately report a
few measly details about a website, how the heck could anyone trust
him to be accurate with anything else?
"Moron! Your bus is leaving!"
DISCLAIMER (41,000 words on Planet Ragnar): Rebecca did not sic me
onto Ragnar. She didn't mention his post to me. She'll probably
smack me around for posting this, as it is her policy to avoid
lowering oneself into the pond to deal with the scum. Oh well. With
enough Clorox, my hands will eventually get clean.
| |
|
| Entirely wrong. I wish people would check out www.lasermyeye.org and
see for themselves. The site is entirely negative. At the end of
every one of their essays, they come to a negative concluison.
After you have your fill of that website, then check out
www.usaeyes.org The malcontents hate that website because it isn't
negative enough for them. That website pulls no punches and is if
anything, a bit negative of reality. It's probably the most realistic
comprehensive website of it's type.
On 12 Oct 2004 04:32:27 -0700, chalkerdude@yahoo.com
(ragnarliechecker) wrote:
>
>-->"I would ask anybody reading this not to visit that website and see
>for yourselves what a cast of malcontent clowns dwell there."<--
>I'm going to suggest to Rebecca that she use your statement for
>promotional materials. "RAGNAR DOESN'T WANT YOU TO SEE LASERMYEYE!"
>All the spinmeisters of Madison Avenue put together couldn't dream up
>such compelling advertising. The only trouble is that I don't think
>Rebecca could afford the bandwidth that such a stampede of visitors
>would require. In the meantime, I'd suggest that anybody reading this
>check out http://www.lasermyeye.org/. Dig through the mountains of
>reference info. Peek at KeratoScoop. Poke around D'Eyealogues, and
>notice that while you will certainly find a range of opinions,
>
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-12, 7:11 pm |
| In other words, you're telling everyone that THIS time, you're not
lying. "Ignore the moron behind the curtain."
Yeah, that'll work.
| |
| serebel 2004-10-12, 10:08 pm |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<br7mm0966mvdkookt56u6gqti4lkfhir1k@4ax.com>...
>
> I'll answer that: If it is accurate and appropriately presented, it
> will remain. You may want to try sometime, SErebel, but don't even
> think about changing Scientist's opinion.
>
Glenn, I wouldn't dream of changing "scientist's" opinions. But since
when does an opinion have to be accurate. Are "scientist's" opinions
accurate?
That said, do negative opinions stay and positive opinions go?
SErebel
| |
|
| Hopefully people have good memories. If so, they know that I have
repeatedly been telling people to check out that website (which you
chose to omit this time). I will repeat it for you. Check out
www.lasermyeye.org and see how every diatribe on their leads to a
negative conclusion. Then check out www.usaeyes.org for a realistic
- yet still slightly negative source for information. Usaeyes gets
accused of being pro-lasik which is just plain nonsense.
On 12 Oct 2004 12:42:38 -0700, chalkerdude@yahoo.com
(ragnarliechecker) wrote:
>In other words, you're telling everyone that THIS time, you're not
>lying. "Ignore the moron behind the curtain."
>
>Yeah, that'll work.
| |
|
| On 12 Oct 2004 17:34:14 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>Glenn - USAEyes.org <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message news:<br7mm0966mvdkookt56u6gqti4lkfhir1k@4ax.com>...
>
>
> Glenn, I wouldn't dream of changing "scientist's" opinions. But since
>when does an opinion have to be accurate. Are "scientist's" opinions
>accurate?
>That said, do negative opinions stay and positive opinions go?
>
>SErebel
Good point SErebel. I nearly forgot about that tactic perfected at
the SE website. They would get 100 messages, 99 of them positive and
one negative... they would delete the 99 positive one's and keep the
one negative message.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-13, 2:06 am |
|
> Glenn, I wouldn't dream of changing "scientist's" opinions. But since
>when does an opinion have to be accurate. Are "scientist's" opinions
>accurate?
>That said, do negative opinions stay and positive opinions go?
>
>SErebel
You've got me there. I've never searched to see if there are any
positives, but I would doubt there are many. The website and bulletin
board is primarily used by people with problems seeking help or
community. I don't watch close enough to know if pro-LASIK opinions
are removed.
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.
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-14, 4:07 am |
| I just figured it out -- you're a politician, right Ragnar?
Just a couple of posts up, you state "I would ask anybody reading this
not to visit that website" (www.lasermyeye.org), then in your very
next post you state "I wish people would check out
www.lasermyeye.org". Kind of like, "I voted for www.lasermyeye.org
before I voted against it."
Credibility? I wouldn't believe you if you swore you were lying.
And what's with this weird black-helicopter, conspiracy-theory
mindset? "DrG" must have something to hide if he doesn't sign every
one of his posts with a 10-page biography, right? And
RagnarLieChecker neglected to put the www.lasermyeye.org URL in his
last post, so he obviously has something to hide, right? Everyone who
disagrees with Ragnar is a mindless cog of the vast anti-Lasik
conspiracy, right? www.lasermyeye.org www.lasermyeye.org
www.lasermyeye.org www.lasermyeye.org www.lasermyeye.org
You should preface every one of your posts with the following
disclaimer (less than 8000 words): "I am a fact-twisting,
scum-spewing, Art Bell-smooching moron. Read at your own risk. DON'T
read www.lasermyeye.org, because they're in league with the devil, but
forget that I told you NOT to read www.lasermyeye.org, because I
REALLY WANT YOU TO READ www.lasermyeye.org, which is populated
entirely by psychotic wingnuts who have nothing better to do than
whine all day about their stupid ol' ruined eyes, which really weren't
ruined, because Lasik is entirely safe, except in those cases when
it's not, and then it's their own fault for trusting their doctors,
because all doctors are absolutely trustworthy, except when they're
not. This makes perfect sense! Trust me! I'm credible! And I mean
REALLY CREDIBLE, in capital letters! Honest!"
Credible. Heh.
P.S. Are you happy with how many times I included the
www.lasermyeye.org URL? If not, I'm sure you'll come up with a
reasonable explanation. Something involving black helicopters...
| |
|
| I never stated "I would ask anybody reading this not to visit that
website (www.lasermyeye.org).
There goes your credibility. I have always said that people should
check out that site to see how biased it is. It's become much more
biased in the last year after the loonies set adrift from SE showed up
there.
Dr. G doesn't need a 10 page biography on every post. But if he's
posting as a doctor, he needs to identify himself.
On 14 Oct 2004 00:43:40 -0700, chalkerdude@yahoo.com
(ragnarliechecker) wrote:
>I just figured it out -- you're a politician, right Ragnar?
>
>Just a couple of posts up, you state "I would ask anybody reading this
>not to visit that website" (www.lasermyeye.org), then in your very
>next post you state "I wish people would check out
>www.lasermyeye.org". Kind of like, "I voted for www.lasermyeye.org
>before I voted against it."
>
>Credibility? I wouldn't believe you if you swore you were lying.
>
>And what's with this weird black-helicopter, conspiracy-theory
>mindset? "DrG" must have something to hide if he doesn't sign every
>one of his posts with a 10-page biography, right? And
>RagnarLieChecker neglected to put the www.lasermyeye.org URL in his
>last post, so he obviously has something to hide, right? Everyone who
>disagrees with Ragnar is a mindless cog of the vast anti-Lasik
>conspiracy, right? www.lasermyeye.org www.lasermyeye.org
>www.lasermyeye.org www.lasermyeye.org www.lasermyeye.org
>
>You should preface every one of your posts with the following
>disclaimer (less than 8000 words): "I am a fact-twisting,
>scum-spewing, Art Bell-smooching moron. Read at your own risk. DON'T
>read www.lasermyeye.org, because they're in league with the devil, but
>forget that I told you NOT to read www.lasermyeye.org, because I
>REALLY WANT YOU TO READ www.lasermyeye.org, which is populated
>entirely by psychotic wingnuts who have nothing better to do than
>whine all day about their stupid ol' ruined eyes, which really weren't
>ruined, because Lasik is entirely safe, except in those cases when
>it's not, and then it's their own fault for trusting their doctors,
>because all doctors are absolutely trustworthy, except when they're
>not. This makes perfect sense! Trust me! I'm credible! And I mean
>REALLY CREDIBLE, in capital letters! Honest!"
>
>Credible. Heh.
>
>P.S. Are you happy with how many times I included the
>www.lasermyeye.org URL? If not, I'm sure you'll come up with a
>reasonable explanation. Something involving black helicopters...
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-15, 4:07 am |
| > I never stated "I would ask anybody reading this not to visit that
> website. There goes your credibility. I have always said that
> people should check out that site to see how biased it is.
Never, huh? In addition to being blind as a bat, you've got
Alzheimer's, too. As I mentioned, it's just a few posts up from here.
Since it's obviously too much of a challenge to find it yourself, can
you manage clicking on this link? (No no -- click the left mouse
button, not the psych ward nurse's call button!)
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...i5qap%404ax.com
It's the last sentence you wrote. Or are you going to claim I "cooked
it"?
You're making it too easy for me, and I don't have any more time to
waste on pitiful morons like yourself. RagnarLieChecker is now
retired, so you can go back to trying to desperately convince the
other unfortunate alt.lasik visitors that you have a shred of
credibility. Good luck with that.
Remember to take your meds.
| |
|
| Hmm.. you are right. Notice, however, that the sentence is not
grammaticaly correct. I had typed "not to take my word for it and to
visit that website and see for yourselves", then I shortened the
sentence intending to delete the first 8 words but I missed the first
word. Whoops!
Anyway, that is getting away from the point.
The point is that your website is now an anti-lasik haven for the nuts
who used to carry on at SE. While I don't think people should use
that website, I suggested that they visit it once to see for
themselves how bad that website is.
On 15 Oct 2004 00:25:14 -0700, chalkerdude@yahoo.com
(ragnarliechecker) wrote:
>
>Never, huh? In addition to being blind as a bat, you've got
>Alzheimer's, too. As I mentioned, it's just a few posts up from here.
> Since it's obviously too much of a challenge to find it yourself, can
>you manage clicking on this link? (No no -- click the left mouse
>button, not the psych ward nurse's call button!)
>
>http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=...i5qap%404ax.com
>
>It's the last sentence you wrote. Or are you going to claim I "cooked
>it"?
>
>You're making it too easy for me, and I don't have any more time to
>waste on pitiful morons like yourself. RagnarLieChecker is now
>retired, so you can go back to trying to desperately convince the
>other unfortunate alt.lasik visitors that you have a shred of
>credibility. Good luck with that.
>
>Remember to take your meds.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:bf6vm0hd0ulhta0u6hnb416941npfmrmhk@4ax.com:
> Hmm.. you are right. Notice, however, that the sentence is not
> grammaticaly correct. I had typed "not to take my word for it and to
> visit that website and see for yourselves", then I shortened the
> sentence intending to delete the first 8 words but I missed the first
> word. Whoops!
> Anyway, that is getting away from the point.
> The point is that your website is now an anti-lasik haven for the nuts
> who used to carry on at SE. While I don't think people should use
> that website, I suggested that they visit it once to see for
> themselves how bad that website is.
>
I rank LME very highly. I also rank the CRSQA website very highly.
However, the tone is much different between the two. LME represents the
perspective of people for whom refractive surgery has gone wrong. The
subtext of the website suggests that the decision to have LASIK and other
refractive surgeries is a decision not to be taken lightly, and should be
heavily researched. It suggests that LASIK can be a life-altering
experience, for the better or the worse. As the wife of a patient recently
confided to me: "My husband came out of LASIK a totally different person
than the one I married."
I urge prospective patients to do their homework and visit the two
websites, and more. In a free market the burden is on the consumer to
avail themselves of the information that is out there.
DrG
| |
|
| I think we have our new topic now.
You are attempting to sanitize LME. Forget that. That is precisely
why I was asking people to go check that site out so I would not have
to be bothered itemizing what is wrong with that site.
Glenn went and created an entire website called ComplicatedEyes which
is also a part of usaeyes.org since it links to that site. The
Complicated Eyes website and the LaserMyEye webstie both are directed
at complications. The difference is that just by the name of the
site, Complicated Eyes indicates it's content and whom it's intended
for. LME portrays itself as a Laser Surgery website - not as a
website that is dedicated to complications. Complications are a
minor part of laser surgery. The LME website would make one think
otherwise.
Finally, note that whilst both CE and LME both are dedicated to
complications, the content of CE is rational and credible whereas the
content of LME is irrational and insane.
I would suggest you read up at usaeyes.org and complicatedeyes. Maybe
you will learn something. You seem to ask Glenn for his advice and
opinions quite often. There is hope for you yet.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:33:11 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:bf6vm0hd0ulhta0u6hnb416941npfmrmhk@4ax.com:
>
>
>I rank LME very highly. I also rank the CRSQA website very highly.
>However, the tone is much different between the two. LME represents the
>perspective of people for whom refractive surgery has gone wrong. The
>subtext of the website suggests that the decision to have LASIK and other
>refractive surgeries is a decision not to be taken lightly, and should be
>heavily researched. It suggests that LASIK can be a life-altering
>experience, for the better or the worse. As the wife of a patient recently
>confided to me: "My husband came out of LASIK a totally different person
>than the one I married."
>
>I urge prospective patients to do their homework and visit the two
>websites, and more. In a free market the burden is on the consumer to
>avail themselves of the information that is out there.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:fflvm0h1oe6uvod0sq62pn60a9bo13ij7m@4ax.com:
> I think we have our new topic now.
>
> You are attempting to sanitize LME. Forget that. That is precisely
> why I was asking people to go check that site out so I would not have
> to be bothered itemizing what is wrong with that site.
>
> Glenn went and created an entire website called ComplicatedEyes which
> is also a part of usaeyes.org since it links to that site. The
> Complicated Eyes website and the LaserMyEye webstie both are directed
> at complications. The difference is that just by the name of the
> site, Complicated Eyes indicates it's content and whom it's intended
> for. LME portrays itself as a Laser Surgery website - not as a
> website that is dedicated to complications. Complications are a
> minor part of laser surgery. The LME website would make one think
> otherwise.
>
> Finally, note that whilst both CE and LME both are dedicated to
> complications, the content of CE is rational and credible whereas the
> content of LME is irrational and insane.
>
> I would suggest you read up at usaeyes.org and complicatedeyes. Maybe
> you will learn something. You seem to ask Glenn for his advice and
> opinions quite often. There is hope for you yet.
Like I said, the CRSQA site has a lot of good information and links, but
when it comes to complications there is nothing like hearing it from the
"horse's mouth." Nobody is so motivated to find a treatment than the
person suffering from the disease. The Complicate Eyes website seems to
promote additional laser treatments more so than LME.
You won't see me asking you for advice and opinions, that's for sure.
DrG
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:33:11 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
|
| On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 15:48:30 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:fflvm0h1oe6uvod0sq62pn60a9bo13ij7m@4ax.com:
>
>
>Like I said, the CRSQA site has a lot of good information and links, but
>when it comes to complications there is nothing like hearing it from the
>"horse's mouth." Nobody is so motivated to find a treatment than the
>person suffering from the disease. The Complicate Eyes website seems to
>promote additional laser treatments more so than LME.
>
>You won't see me asking you for advice and opinions, that's for sure.
>
>DrG
>
Horse's mouth is a good idea, but LME is much like an orifice far from
the mouth.
It sounds like you are almost done pouting. Now go to bed and maybe
mommy will give you a cookie with your 2 tablespoons of fish oil. Make
sure you wear your Depends so you don't get the bed all greasy from
all those oily supplements.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 7:25 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6f60n0h5o51idoela83fbhmc67g8og2fog@4ax.com:
>
> Horse's mouth is a good idea, but LME is much like an orifice far from
> the mouth.
>
> It sounds like you are almost done pouting. Now go to bed and maybe
> mommy will give you a cookie with your 2 tablespoons of fish oil. Make
> sure you wear your Depends so you don't get the bed all greasy from
> all those oily supplements.
>
It would appear that you are all orifice all the time, and a loose one at
that.
Now take your meds.
DrG
| |
|
| Spare me your poisonous barbs you tin plated ninny.
(Dr. Zachary Smith)
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 21:01:04 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:6f60n0h5o51idoela83fbhmc67g8og2fog@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>It would appear that you are all orifice all the time, and a loose one at
>that.
>
>Now take your meds.
>
>
>DrG
|
| |
|
|