|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > October 2004 > LaserMyEyes BBS
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]
|
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-12, 7:11 pm |
| Ragnar and others have made a big deal out of this, so let's take a
look at some facts about the folks that participate at the LaserMyEye
bulletin board.
As of this morning, there are 65 registered users, of which 22 (33.8%)
have never posted, 11 (16.9%) have posted only once, and an additional
12 (18.4%) have posted at least once, but less than 10 times. So a
total of 45 (69.2%) of the total registered users have posted less
than 10 times.
Of the remaining top 20 posters in terms of quantity (I am ranked 12th
with a total of 32 posts), only six (9.2%) have posted more than 50
times.
There have been a total of 1,386 posts on the bulletin board, of which
273 (19.7 %) were by "Scientist", 231 (16.7 %) by "DrG", 153 (11.0 %)
by "Lucy", 138 (9.9 %) by "Rebecca", and 92 (6.6 %) by "Cindy".
Rebecca is the owner of the website, DrG is an acknowledge consultant
to the website, and Cindy is a moderator of the bulletin board. So
five people constitute 886 (63.9%) of the postings at this particular
bulletin board, and 20 people constitute 1321 (95.3%) of the total
posts.
So here is my analysis and some opinion:
There sure is a lot of debate over here about a bulletin board that
has only 65 members with 20 who constitute more than 95% of the posts.
The board is dominated by a very small group of individuals who
include the board's owner, optometrist consultant, and moderator.
One non-affiliated person - "Scientist" - absolutely dominates the
board with nearly 20% of the total postings, averaging 2.55 posts each
and every day, seven days a week. Every fifth statement, observation,
or musing is from "Scientist". It is rare that there is any subject
matter on which "Scientist" does not state an opinion, that opinion
being decidedly and fervently anti-LASIK.
If you exclude or ignore "Scientist", the board is rather well
balanced with a somewhat anti-refractive surgery ambience.
Considering someone with a poor outcome created it, it is primarily a
resource for people with poor outcomes, and the majority of
individuals who participate at ANY of these Internet forums tend to be
anti-LASIK, this seems be a reasonable expectation - with the notable
exception of "Scientist".
Scientist is to LaserMyEye as Ragnar and Keller (opposite opinions)
have been to this forum: dominant, prolific, and one-sided.
As for the charge of the SurgicalEyes "loonies" populating the board,
yes there are a few familiar names, but they really do not dominate
the board. That dubious title goes to "Scientist" with a clear
anti-LASIK agenda. It is Rebecca's decision if she wants her website
bulletin board dominated by any one person or one opinion. Rebecca is
the final arbitrator of what her bulletin board projects.
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 didn't reailize that! I thought that BBS was doing much better
than that! I'm surprised that some nuts are taking all that time to
maintain a BBS that has so little participation.
As for opinions, one could be labled as being overly negative, overly
positive, or middle of the road - wishy-washy milquetoast/pandering.
I'm happy with anyone who doesn't lie or intentionally mislead or omit
critical facts from their posts. For instance, when an athlete
doesn't play so well after being sidelined for a year with a back
injury - I think it's rather misleading to ignore the back injury
entirely from their explanation for the drop in rankings. Even worse,
lets assume that this ommission was a mistake. To continue to ignore
that back injury and not even acknowlege it is extremely curious.
BTW, who is Scientist? If someone is purporting to be a scientist,
they need to identify themselves.
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:21:25 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Ragnar and others have made a big deal out of this, so let's take a
>look at some facts about the folks that participate at the LaserMyEye
>bulletin board.
>
>As of this morning, there are 65 registered users, of which 22 (33.8%)
>have never posted, 11 (16.9%) have posted only once, and an additional
>12 (18.4%) have posted at least once, but less than 10 times. So a
>total of 45 (69.2%) of the total registered users have posted less
>than 10 times.
>
>Of the remaining top 20 posters in terms of quantity (I am ranked 12th
>with a total of 32 posts), only six (9.2%) have posted more than 50
>times.
>
>There have been a total of 1,386 posts on the bulletin board, of which
>273 (19.7 %) were by "Scientist", 231 (16.7 %) by "DrG", 153 (11.0 %)
>by "Lucy", 138 (9.9 %) by "Rebecca", and 92 (6.6 %) by "Cindy".
>Rebecca is the owner of the website, DrG is an acknowledge consultant
>to the website, and Cindy is a moderator of the bulletin board. So
>five people constitute 886 (63.9%) of the postings at this particular
>bulletin board, and 20 people constitute 1321 (95.3%) of the total
>posts.
>
>So here is my analysis and some opinion:
>
>There sure is a lot of debate over here about a bulletin board that
>has only 65 members with 20 who constitute more than 95% of the posts.
>The board is dominated by a very small group of individuals who
>include the board's owner, optometrist consultant, and moderator.
>
>One non-affiliated person - "Scientist" - absolutely dominates the
>board with nearly 20% of the total postings, averaging 2.55 posts each
>and every day, seven days a week. Every fifth statement, observation,
>or musing is from "Scientist". It is rare that there is any subject
>matter on which "Scientist" does not state an opinion, that opinion
>being decidedly and fervently anti-LASIK.
>
>If you exclude or ignore "Scientist", the board is rather well
>balanced with a somewhat anti-refractive surgery ambience.
>Considering someone with a poor outcome created it, it is primarily a
>resource for people with poor outcomes, and the majority of
>individuals who participate at ANY of these Internet forums tend to be
>anti-LASIK, this seems be a reasonable expectation - with the notable
>exception of "Scientist".
>
>Scientist is to LaserMyEye as Ragnar and Keller (opposite opinions)
>have been to this forum: dominant, prolific, and one-sided.
>
>As for the charge of the SurgicalEyes "loonies" populating the board,
>yes there are a few familiar names, but they really do not dominate
>the board. That dubious title goes to "Scientist" with a clear
>anti-LASIK agenda. It is Rebecca's decision if she wants her website
>bulletin board dominated by any one person or one opinion. Rebecca is
>the final arbitrator of what her bulletin board projects.
>
>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 2004-10-12, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jf6om0l32b0ub39bq839d0mhok86akt98o@4ax.com:
> I didn't reailize that! I thought that BBS was doing much better
> than that! I'm surprised that some nuts are taking all that time to
> maintain a BBS that has so little participation.
> As for opinions, one could be labled as being overly negative, overly
> positive, or middle of the road - wishy-washy milquetoast/pandering.
> I'm happy with anyone who doesn't lie or intentionally mislead or omit
> critical facts from their posts. For instance, when an athlete
> doesn't play so well after being sidelined for a year with a back
> injury - I think it's rather misleading to ignore the back injury
> entirely from their explanation for the drop in rankings. Even worse,
> lets assume that this ommission was a mistake. To continue to ignore
> that back injury and not even acknowlege it is extremely curious.
>
> BTW, who is Scientist? If someone is purporting to be a scientist,
> they need to identify themselves.
>
Back to the Mary Pierce, thing again. Just can't seem to give it a rest,
can you?
The entire episode had nothing to do with Mary Pierce being sidelined, but
had everything to do with the fact that she blamed her LASIK for having
difficulty with night matches, which puts a cramp in her schedule. I think
that Jennifer Capriati said the same thing about her LASIK.
Coincidentally, night visual disturbances are among the most frequently
reported and debilitating effects of LASIK in general.
I'm happy to argue about this forever, Rags. But, just remember that
everytime you incite me to correct you about a LASIK complication, you have
an opportunity to embarrass yourself.
DrG
| |
|
| There you go again.... you neglected to mention that her drop in the
rankings was due to not playing for a year and firing her coach. And
again you neglected that Mary called her LASIK a miracle and that she
was so happy she had it done. You also again are attributing
Capriati's problems to LASIK when it in fact was in her own words the
unrelated pterygium that caused her problems.
And once again, for those that don't know, Dr. Leukoma is a ficticious
character. Leukoma is a eye disease (see
http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/leukoma ). When someone
chooses an eye disease as an alias, it gives you a good idea of their
perspective.
Regarding me embarrasing myself.. I don't see it that way. You've
lost a lot of credibility in the past few weeks with many people, and
you certainly haven't gained any credibility with anyone.
Lastly, night vision problems are minor. In fact, after a few minutes
of being in the dark, most - if not all the night vision
irregularities disappear. Unless you have actually had the procedure
done, it's impossible to know what you are talking about regarding the
effects of night vision.
I don't recall you ever correcting me about anything regarding LASIK.
I'm beginning to wonder about your proficiency with contact lenses as
well. According to you, you take an average of 46 months to fit
custom contacts? That is unacceptable. Do you tell your patients
that they can expect to wait 4 years to fit their lenses?
On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:41:14 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:jf6om0l32b0ub39bq839d0mhok86akt98o@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Back to the Mary Pierce, thing again. Just can't seem to give it a rest,
>can you?
>
>The entire episode had nothing to do with Mary Pierce being sidelined, but
>had everything to do with the fact that she blamed her LASIK for having
>difficulty with night matches, which puts a cramp in her schedule. I think
>that Jennifer Capriati said the same thing about her LASIK.
>Coincidentally, night visual disturbances are among the most frequently
>reported and debilitating effects of LASIK in general.
>
>I'm happy to argue about this forever, Rags. But, just remember that
>everytime you incite me to correct you about a LASIK complication, you have
>an opportunity to embarrass yourself.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-13, 7:55 am |
| Yes, here I go again.
Mary Pierce called LASIK a miracle in 2000, right after she had it done.
In 2002, she was quoted as saying that her vision was "50%" and that she
was trying to play with and without contacts, and that her night vision was
impaired to the point where she could not play night matches. Jennifer
Capriati also was quoted in the press, remarking about her night vision
"halos." A pterygium does not cause a halo. But, she did have a
pterygiectomy some time after her LASIK. And that's another topic
entirely, because if she had a pterygium before LASIK, why wasn't it
removed before LASIK? OTOH, if she didn't have a pterygium before LASIK,
then what caused it to grow...hmmmm? Why do you continue to want to change
the subject? Do you work for the surgeon who did this?
Insofar as night vision problems induced by LASIK go, I agree that most of
the time they are minor. However, I personally know patients who did quit
driving at night because of LASIK-induced night vision disturbances. Some
of them were able to resume this function after being fitted for RGP
lenses. This is another interesting topic that I think needs to be
explored further, gathering from the relative ignorance professed by
Ragnar.
Also, you are a liar. I never said it took me 46 months to fit a post-RS
patient with contact lenses. I said that the average time elapsed after
surgery to the time they first consulted with me was 46 months. This
number is skewed by the RK patients. However, just looking at LASIK
patients, the average time since surgery is 16 months before they consult
with me. This is a significant figure because it refutes the claim made by
Ragnar that optometrists are "interfering with the healing process."
According to Glenn Hagele, any complication after six months is a "long-
term" complication. Actually, the average time to fit a patient with
special contact lenses following refractive surgery is about one to two
weeks.
I would say that Ragnar has lost credibility here, but he never had any to
begin with. About all he can do is to try to tear down the credibility of
others. Unfortunately, he winds up elevating us. Dr. Leukoma is the
pseudonym used by Greg Gemoules, O.D. on the internet and in the press
since 1999. Pseudonyms are commonly used on the internet. And yes, I have
gotten a couple of enquiries from people about "leukoma," or a dense white
scar on the cornea.
Also, for some odd reason, I am suddenly busier with post-RS cases. Must
be due to loss of credibility on alt.lasik-eyes.
DrG
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:th6pm05bv24j7qimgass2oush20opfqjrj@4ax.com:
> There you go again.... you neglected to mention that her drop in the
> rankings was due to not playing for a year and firing her coach. And
> again you neglected that Mary called her LASIK a miracle and that she
> was so happy she had it done. You also again are attributing
> Capriati's problems to LASIK when it in fact was in her own words the
> unrelated pterygium that caused her problems.
> And once again, for those that don't know, Dr. Leukoma is a ficticious
> character. Leukoma is a eye disease (see
> http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/leukoma ). When someone
> chooses an eye disease as an alias, it gives you a good idea of their
> perspective.
>
> Regarding me embarrasing myself.. I don't see it that way. You've
> lost a lot of credibility in the past few weeks with many people, and
> you certainly haven't gained any credibility with anyone.
>
> Lastly, night vision problems are minor. In fact, after a few minutes
> of being in the dark, most - if not all the night vision
> irregularities disappear. Unless you have actually had the procedure
> done, it's impossible to know what you are talking about regarding the
> effects of night vision.
>
> I don't recall you ever correcting me about anything regarding LASIK.
> I'm beginning to wonder about your proficiency with contact lenses as
> well. According to you, you take an average of 46 months to fit
> custom contacts? That is unacceptable. Do you tell your patients
> that they can expect to wait 4 years to fit their lenses?
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 18:41:14 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
|
| You did it again. You completely ignored the back injury of Mary
Pierce and that the Capriati problem was related to the sun and her
pterygium.
Pseudonyms are commonly used on the internet, but not when one is
posting as a doctor.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:18:09 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Yes, here I go again.
>
>Mary Pierce called LASIK a miracle in 2000, right after she had it done.
>In 2002, she was quoted as saying that her vision was "50%" and that she
>was trying to play with and without contacts, and that her night vision was
>impaired to the point where she could not play night matches. Jennifer
>Capriati also was quoted in the press, remarking about her night vision
>"halos." A pterygium does not cause a halo. But, she did have a
>pterygiectomy some time after her LASIK. And that's another topic
>entirely, because if she had a pterygium before LASIK, why wasn't it
>removed before LASIK? OTOH, if she didn't have a pterygium before LASIK,
>then what caused it to grow...hmmmm? Why do you continue to want to change
>the subject? Do you work for the surgeon who did this?
>
>Insofar as night vision problems induced by LASIK go, I agree that most of
>the time they are minor. However, I personally know patients who did quit
>driving at night because of LASIK-induced night vision disturbances. Some
>of them were able to resume this function after being fitted for RGP
>lenses. This is another interesting topic that I think needs to be
>explored further, gathering from the relative ignorance professed by
>Ragnar.
>
>Also, you are a liar. I never said it took me 46 months to fit a post-RS
>patient with contact lenses. I said that the average time elapsed after
>surgery to the time they first consulted with me was 46 months. This
>number is skewed by the RK patients. However, just looking at LASIK
>patients, the average time since surgery is 16 months before they consult
>with me. This is a significant figure because it refutes the claim made by
>Ragnar that optometrists are "interfering with the healing process."
>According to Glenn Hagele, any complication after six months is a "long-
>term" complication. Actually, the average time to fit a patient with
>special contact lenses following refractive surgery is about one to two
>weeks.
>
>I would say that Ragnar has lost credibility here, but he never had any to
>begin with. About all he can do is to try to tear down the credibility of
>others. Unfortunately, he winds up elevating us. Dr. Leukoma is the
>pseudonym used by Greg Gemoules, O.D. on the internet and in the press
>since 1999. Pseudonyms are commonly used on the internet. And yes, I have
>gotten a couple of enquiries from people about "leukoma," or a dense white
>scar on the cornea.
>
>Also, for some odd reason, I am suddenly busier with post-RS cases. Must
>be due to loss of credibility on alt.lasik-eyes.
>
>DrG
>
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:th6pm05bv24j7qimgass2oush20opfqjrj@4ax.com:
>
| |
| DoctorMyEye 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| I have engaged in a number of conversations with Scientist, and she
has every right to maintain her anonymity. You can deduce from her
writing that she is well educated, working in the medical field and
capable of researching her arguments very well. You might not agree
with her, but she has never stooped into the mud to deal with the
blatant lies and antagonism that you present on this newsgroup.
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> BTW, who is Scientist? If someone is purporting to be a scientist,
> they need to identify themselves.
>
>
> On Tue, 12 Oct 2004 16:21:25 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
> <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
| |
|
| Having knowlege and skills does not necessarily make one a good source
for advice or information. For instance, Mr. O. Bin Laden is a highly
educated man, very rich, and quite knowlegeable about civil
engineering. I wouldn't recommend him for engineering the new WTC
though.
Likewise, no matter how knowlegeable or skilled someone is in the
eyecare field, if they have shown an unrealistic bias, they need to be
"stifled".
If only our politicians were as intelligent as the insane, malevolent
terrorists... sigh.
BTW, that "Scentiest" character is crazy. Do you have something
against associating with people who aren't crackpots?
On 13 Oct 2004 10:06:21 -0700, doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye)
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I have engaged in a number of conversations with Scientist, and she
>has every right to maintain her anonymity. You can deduce from her
>writing that she is well educated, working in the medical field and
>capable of researching her arguments very well. You might not agree
>with her, but she has never stooped into the mud to deal with the
>blatant lies and antagonism that you present on this newsgroup.
>
>
>
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote:
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:rhlqm0lkbnaru66ttq7hi412t8h6aonsbl@4ax.com:
> You did it again. You completely ignored the back injury of Mary
> Pierce and that the Capriati problem was related to the sun and her
> pterygium.
>
> Pseudonyms are commonly used on the internet, but not when one is
> posting as a doctor.
Yes, and you completely ignored the eye injuries of Mary Pierce and
Jennifer Capriati, which was probably related to their surgeons, and/or
LASIK.
Pseudonyms are common on the internet alright, but few are so well known as
Dr. Leukoma.
Once again, thanks for the free publicity.
DrG
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 12:18:09 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| ycdbsoya 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| Dr. G -
Don't forget you are also known as Dr. Lou Coma. ;->
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-13, 7:11 pm |
| the_boydstons@hotmail.com (ycdbsoya) wrote in
news:d6260d64.0410131402.14146999@posting.google.com:
> Dr. G -
>
> Don't forget you are also known as Dr. Lou Coma. ;->
Thanks go to Grant Mason, aka CatmanX for that.
DrG
| |
| serebel 2004-10-13, 10:08 pm |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news:<79e0f419.0410130906.39778f0a@posting.google.com>...
> I have engaged in a number of conversations with Scientist, and she
> has every right to maintain her anonymity. You can deduce from her
> writing that she is well educated, working in the medical field and
> capable of researching her arguments very well. You might not agree
> with her, but she has never stooped into the mud to deal with the
> blatant lies and antagonism that you present on this newsgroup.
>
>
>
> RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
I knew it!!!
"scientist is that friggin' lunatic, Broken eyes !!!
SErebel
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 2:08 am |
| serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote in
news:6ddf3bb5.0410131904.4b93129e@posting.google.com:
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message
> news:<79e0f419.0410130906.39778f0a@posting.google.com>...
>
> I knew it!!!
>
> "scientist is that friggin' lunatic, Broken eyes !!!
>
> SErebel
Not so.
DrG
| |
|
| Even though both Pierce was sidelined for a year with a back injury,
you blame LASIK (which she called a miracle) for her drop in the
rankings. Have you ever thought of entering politics? I'm sure you
would be a better president than either of the two buffoons running
for president now.
As for the pseudonym of Dr Leukoma being well known.. are you serious?
Don't flatter yourself.
And once again, we must remind the readers that Dr. Leukoma is a
ficticious character.
On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:15:19 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:rhlqm0lkbnaru66ttq7hi412t8h6aonsbl@4ax.com:
>
>
>Yes, and you completely ignored the eye injuries of Mary Pierce and
>Jennifer Capriati, which was probably related to their surgeons, and/or
>LASIK.
>
>Pseudonyms are common on the internet alright, but few are so well known as
>Dr. Leukoma.
>
>Once again, thanks for the free publicity.
>
>DrG
>
>
| |
|
| On 13 Oct 2004 20:04:58 -0700, serebel@aol.com (serebel) wrote:
>doctor_my_eye@msn.com (DoctorMyEye) wrote in message news:<79e0f419.0410130906.39778f0a@posting.google.com>...
>
> I knew it!!!
>
>"scientist is that friggin' lunatic, Broken eyes !!!
>
>SErebel
I remember Broken eyes. Shame on you SErebel... you owe an apology
to all the lunatics out there. How dare you associate lunatics with
Broken Eyes!
: )
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-14, 4:07 am |
| Obviously he doesn't have anything against RESPONDING to crackpots,
Ragnar.
As long as you're making analogies to well-known mass murderers, I'll
add a few. Hitler, Stalin, Mao Tse-Tung and Saddam Hussein would all
agree wholeheartedly with your belief that intelligent and
knowledgeable people (including scientists) who don't toe the party
line are dangerous and should be "stifled."
You're sounding creepier with every additional post.
-------------
Ragnar's motto: "I'm credible! Trust me!"
RagnarLieChecker qualifications: Possesses more than 4 functioning
brain cells.
Advertisement for www.lasermyeye.org: "Featuring NO RAGNAR!"
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-14, 4:07 am |
| > BTW, who is Scientist? If someone is purporting to be a scientist,
> they need to identify themselves.
So you'll know which direction to blow chunks, Ragnar?
To be perfectly consistent, you'd better identify yourself as a waste of DNA.
-------------
Ragnar's motto: "I'm credible! Trust me!"
RagnarLieChecker qualifications: Possesses more than 4 functioning brain cells.
Advertisement for www.lasermyeye.org: "Featuring NO RAGNAR!"
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-14, 4:07 am |
| > When someone
> chooses an eye disease as an alias, it gives you a good idea of their
> perspective.
And when someone obsesses on an alias in post after post after post,
it gives you a good idea of their mental state. Losing marbles with
each passing minute, I'd say.
> Regarding me embarrasing myself.. I don't see it that way. You've
> lost a lot of credibility in the past few weeks with many people, and
> you certainly haven't gained any credibility with anyone.
Repeating your claim to credibility ad nauseam won't make such a wild
fantasy come true, Ragnar. Perhaps you'd have a better chance if you
clicked your heels together three times while you repeated it.
> Lastly, night vision problems are minor. In fact, after a few minutes
> of being in the dark, most - if not all the night vision
> irregularities disappear.
Okay, you're pulling my leg, right? You're just funnin' with me,
right? I mean, you can't seriously be attempting to convince anyone
that everyone who has reported long-term, debilitating night vision
problems after Lasik are all liars, are you? Occam's Razor says
"Ragnar is a lying SOB."
> Unless you have actually had the procedure
> done, it's impossible to know what you are talking about regarding the
> effects of night vision.
And unless you've had a quadruple bypass, it's impossible to know what
you are talking about regarding coronary obstructions, right? Too bad
all those cardiac specialists wasted their time in med school -- they
could have just had a bypass themselves, and they'd be qualified!
But even using your own moronic criteria, you aren't qualified to open
your bile-filled mouth, Ragnar, since you haven't experienced serious
night vision problems yourself. Based on available evidence, I'd say
you are blind as a bat -- you obviously don't read what you write.
-------------
Ragnar's motto: "I'm credible! Trust me!"
RagnarLieChecker qualifications: Possesses more than 4 functioning
brain cells.
Advertisement for www.lasermyeye.org: "Featuring NO RAGNAR!"
| |
| ragnarliechecker 2004-10-14, 4:07 am |
| > Pseudonyms are commonly used on the internet, but not when one is
> posting as a doctor.
Am I the only one for whom Ragnar's obsession brings to mind Jack
Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets"?
Two suggestions, dude:
(1) Stop trashing your meds. You need them. Badly.
(2) It's okay to walk on the lines on the sidewalk.
-------------
Ragnar's motto: "I'm credible! Trust me!"
RagnarLieChecker qualifications: Possesses more than 4 functioning
brain cells.
Advertisement for www.lasermyeye.org: "Featuring NO RAGNAR!"
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 7:07 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:0j1sm0tu22nb2pb8jlvn984stco20orv7i@4ax.com:
> Even though both Pierce was sidelined for a year with a back injury,
> you blame LASIK (which she called a miracle) for her drop in the
> rankings. Have you ever thought of entering politics? I'm sure you
> would be a better president than either of the two buffoons running
> for president now.
There you go again trying to distract people from the fact that Mary Pierce
blamed her inability to play tennis at night to problems stemming from
LASIK. Ditto, Jennifer Capriati. You are still in denial, even after I
posted the actual news articles containing their quotes.
> As for the pseudonym of Dr Leukoma being well known.. are you serious?
> Don't flatter yourself.
Better know than yours, "Ragnar."
>
> And once again, we must remind the readers that Dr. Leukoma is a
> ficticious character.
Of course, and this post is being typed by a machine. Funny how people
still manage to find me, especially as there really is not Dr. Leukoma in
the phonebook. I wonder how they pull off that miraculous feat?
DrG
>
>
> On Wed, 13 Oct 2004 21:15:19 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 7:07 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:5c2rm0578jojtkfvkbnjlbrm81dcmuih3a@4ax.com:
> Likewise, no matter how knowlegeable or skilled someone is in the
> eyecare field, if they have shown an unrealistic bias, they need to be
> "stifled".
>
What's that supposed to mean?
Who's paying you?
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 7:07 am |
| chalkerdude@yahoo.com (ragnarliechecker) wrote in
news:4d914fed.0410140057.279e2847@posting.google.com:
>
> Am I the only one for whom Ragnar's obsession brings to mind Jack
> Nicholson in "As Good As It Gets"?
>
> Two suggestions, dude:
> (1) Stop trashing your meds. You need them. Badly.
> (2) It's okay to walk on the lines on the sidewalk.
>
> -------------
> Ragnar's motto: "I'm credible! Trust me!"
>
> RagnarLieChecker qualifications: Possesses more than 4 functioning
> brain cells.
>
> Advertisement for www.lasermyeye.org: "Featuring NO RAGNAR!"
>
I'm certain you've noticed how Ragnar has driven virtually everybody out of
his sandbox. Typical internet bully.
DrG
| |
|
| We can do this back and forth a million times if you like.
Once again, both Pierce and Capriati had non-LASIK related problems
that resulted in their drop in rankings. One of the urls you posted
even showed that. But while the url mentioned it, you didn't include
that part in your cut and paste of the short article.
I'm not running a popularity contest. That seems very important to
you. Your boasting of how much business you have sounds just like the
high-volume Lasik mills that refer to their surgeons as "the most
experienced". Some of those LVI doctors do 25 patents a day, 50
eyes. Eyecare is not McDonalds hamburgers.
Just keep on posting and making a fool of yourself. If you notice,
some people used to routinely defend you in this newsgroup. You are
making it very difficult for them to defend you without losing their
own credibility.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:21:46 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:0j1sm0tu22nb2pb8jlvn984stco20orv7i@4ax.com:
>
>
>There you go again trying to distract people from the fact that Mary Pierce
>blamed her inability to play tennis at night to problems stemming from
>LASIK. Ditto, Jennifer Capriati. You are still in denial, even after I
>posted the actual news articles containing their quotes.
>
>
>Better know than yours, "Ragnar."
>
>Of course, and this post is being typed by a machine. Funny how people
>still manage to find me, especially as there really is not Dr. Leukoma in
>the phonebook. I wonder how they pull off that miraculous feat?
>
>DrG
| |
|
| Now I'm a bully. I guess that makes you the crybaby.
For someone who is supposedly so busy, you sure are posting a lot of
messages 24/7.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:49 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>chalkerdude@yahoo.com (ragnarliechecker) wrote in
>news:4d914fed.0410140057.279e2847@posting.google.com:
>
>
>I'm certain you've noticed how Ragnar has driven virtually everybody out of
>his sandbox. Typical internet bully.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:ccvsm0havr4g73krnrpdjaav16102c6rvq@4ax.com:
> Now I'm a bully. I guess that makes you the crybaby.
>
> For someone who is supposedly so busy, you sure are posting a lot of
> messages 24/7.
At least I have a job. What's yours? You've never really stated.
DrG
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 12:01:49 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| Organization: Your Company
Message-ID: <Xns9582733D829FBDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Lines: 101
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:11:55 GMT
NNTP-Posting-Host: 4.227.126.231
X-Complaints-To: abuse@earthlink.net
X-Trace: newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net 1097770315 4.227.126.231 (Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:11:55 PDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 09:11:55 PDT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.lasik-eyes:39918
RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:vpusm0h3u9fbn9i78jf3od3483c60s6puv@4ax.com:
> We can do this back and forth a million times if you like.
>
> Once again, both Pierce and Capriati had non-LASIK related problems
> that resulted in their drop in rankings. One of the urls you posted
> even showed that. But while the url mentioned it, you didn't include
> that part in your cut and paste of the short article.
This is not alt.lasik-eyes, not alt.shoulder-pain.
>
> I'm not running a popularity contest. That seems very important to
> you. Your boasting of how much business you have sounds just like the
> high-volume Lasik mills that refer to their surgeons as "the most
> experienced". Some of those LVI doctors do 25 patents a day, 50
> eyes. Eyecare is not McDonalds hamburgers.
>
> Just keep on posting and making a fool of yourself. If you notice,
> some people used to routinely defend you in this newsgroup. You are
> making it very difficult for them to defend you without losing their
> own credibility.
What should they be defending me against? You? Being on the receiving end
of your invective is a form of approbation. By the way, when was the last
time anybody took up after you?
DrG
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 11:21:46 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in
news:Xns9582733D829FBDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201:
>
>
> This is not alt.lasik-eyes, not alt.shoulder-pain.
>
>
Sorry, this is alt.lasi-eyes, not alt.shoulder-pain.
DrG
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2004-10-14, 7:13 pm |
| > I knew it!!!
>
>"scientist is that friggin' lunatic, Broken eyes !!!
>
>SErebel
If true, that would explain a few things.
| |
|
| It might just be my perception, but your posts are getting more
juvenile by the day. Are you posting them yourself or is someone
posting messages for you?
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:06:53 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:ccvsm0havr4g73krnrpdjaav16102c6rvq@4ax.com:
>
>
>At least I have a job. What's yours? You've never really stated.
>
>DrG
>
| |
|
| It wasn't shoulder pain, it was a back injury. This is about the 20th
time this has been gone over in the past 2 weeks. She was sidelined
for a year with a back injury, she had ONE night match and lost it,
she mentioned that it's difficult to see the ball at night, she never
did express the slightest regret about having LASIK. You can keep
trying to misrepresent the facts as often as you like, I don't mind.
People are not as stupid as you think.
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:11:55 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:vpusm0h3u9fbn9i78jf3od3483c60s6puv@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>This is not alt.lasik-eyes, not alt.shoulder-pain.
>
>
>
>What should they be defending me against? You? Being on the receiving end
>of your invective is a form of approbation. By the way, when was the last
>time anybody took up after you?
>
>
>DrG
>
| |
|
| I suppose you had some reason to repost this message 10 minutes after
you previously posted it?
On Thu, 14 Oct 2004 16:26:34 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com>
wrote:
>"Dr. Leukoma" <drg@leukoma.com> wrote in
>news:Xns9582733D829FBDrLeukoma@207.217.125.201:
>
>
>Sorry, this is alt.lasi-eyes, not alt.shoulder-pain.
>
>DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 7:07 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:qg2um0p27op3jm5p42t1klf3rb1j9a1lsg@4ax.com:
> It wasn't shoulder pain, it was a back injury. This is about the 20th
> time this has been gone over in the past 2 weeks. She was sidelined
> for a year with a back injury, she had ONE night match and lost it,
> she mentioned that it's difficult to see the ball at night, she never
> did express the slightest regret about having LASIK. You can keep
> trying to misrepresent the facts as often as you like, I don't mind.
> People are not as stupid as you think.
>
Who said she had any regrets, Ragnar? Can you show me any quote where
either I or somebody else said she had regrets? Mary Pierce blamed her
inability to play night matches on her LASIK outcome, 2 years after her
surgery. I don't know if she regretted having LASIK or not, because the
article only stated that she was having difficulties.
It is pathetic that you cannot even accept the printed word.
DrG
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2e2um0lrpvs89mtctoa9mc8vk66n8sva50@4ax.com:
> It might just be my perception, but your posts are getting more
> juvenile by the day. Are you posting them yourself or is someone
> posting messages for you?
Indeed. That is always the end result when someone stoops to converse with
you. I believe Glenn called it "wrestling with pigs."
DrG
| |
|
| You read it here folks. Mary Pierce said that LASIK was a miracle
and they she is so happy she had it done. Now "DrG" is admitting that
Mary Pierce never expressed any regrets about having LASIK done.
Glad we finally got that one cleared up.
On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:05:27 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:qg2um0p27op3jm5p42t1klf3rb1j9a1lsg@4ax.com:
>
>
>Who said she had any regrets, Ragnar? Can you show me any quote where
>either I or somebody else said she had regrets? Mary Pierce blamed her
>inability to play night matches on her LASIK outcome, 2 years after her
>surgery. I don't know if she regretted having LASIK or not, because the
>article only stated that she was having difficulties.
>
>It is pathetic that you cannot even accept the printed word.
>
>DrG
| |
|
| On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:08:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
<drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:2e2um0lrpvs89mtctoa9mc8vk66n8sva50@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>Indeed. That is always the end result when someone stoops to converse with
>you. I believe Glenn called it "wrestling with pigs."
>
>DrG
I don't think Glenn was referring to you as a pig, I think he was
referring to Hanson as a pig.
Now that you cleared up the Mary Pierce issue we can get off that
thread.
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:falvm0llfptnks1m7mketpvmvqriv4ivbk@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:08:40 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> I don't think Glenn was referring to you as a pig, I think he was
> referring to Hanson as a pig.
No and no.
DrG
>
> Now that you cleared up the Mary Pierce issue we can get off that
> thread.
>
| |
| Dr. Leukoma 2004-10-15, 11:08 am |
| RM <rm@yahoo.com> wrote in news:j4lvm0l8nlu9jmg3c3tdn542ihhr1n3jit@4ax.com:
> You read it here folks. Mary Pierce said that LASIK was a miracle
> and they she is so happy she had it done. Now "DrG" is admitting that
> Mary Pierce never expressed any regrets about having LASIK done.
>
> Glad we finally got that one cleared up.
Maybe she never liked playing night matches. Anyway, she is still playing
tennis - even defeated that Russian in the Open.
DrG
>
>
>
> On Fri, 15 Oct 2004 12:05:27 GMT, "Dr. Leukoma"
> <drgNOSPAM@leukoma.com> wrote:
>
>
>
|
| |
|
|