Lasik Eyes Surgery

Author

SEF

Simpledog

2004-12-24, 2:08 am

Since Ron started a good thing, and it died. And through his web, I met
some good docs, I'd like to ask him personally.

Why did SEF die? Repeated answers from previous threads not required.

Please don't give me a canned "it moved on". You used to have dozens of
docs posting, and postings coming in every minute. You used to do some good
things, and SEF is still the magnet for those who may have complications,
although now they find a defunct site, void of access.

What happened Ron? I deserve an answer, because I gave you 30 dollars of
the 30k you want.

Hell, that Doc Grant, he used to post 50 times a week.

crvc@wyoming.com

2004-12-24, 11:09 am

I had LASIK before Surgicaleyes was around. Had it been here, it might
have saved me from the biggest mistake of my life.

My two cents is that doctors are screening potential patients much
better than when I had LASIK. So fewer poor candidates are being
damaged. I noticed in the waning months of SE that most posts were
from people who'd had surgery and were upset with temporary problems
like dryness or upset that they didn't get better than 20:20 vision,
the so-called 'superivsion'

What I wasn't seeing anymore was people like me, who can't drive a car
after sunset, thanks to LASIK.

So maybe SE served a function in making the point to surgeons that they
can create a 20:20 result and still be the cause of crappy vision in
their patients if they don't screen better.

Simpledog

2004-12-24, 7:10 pm

They were also put off by the excessively high registration fee. As if
their 'viewed' nemesis' out there couldn't afford the buy in price.

SEF was a good thing, that got political. Glenn hit it right on the head,
but, I ain't got no beef against Ron, it was his baby, so, I wanted his
perpspective.

He probably will ignore it.

<crvc@wyoming.com> wrote in message
news:1103907372.713894.288420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>I had LASIK before Surgicaleyes was around. Had it been here, it might
> have saved me from the biggest mistake of my life.
>
> My two cents is that doctors are screening potential patients much
> better than when I had LASIK. So fewer poor candidates are being
> damaged. I noticed in the waning months of SE that most posts were
> from people who'd had surgery and were upset with temporary problems
> like dryness or upset that they didn't get better than 20:20 vision,
> the so-called 'superivsion'
>
> What I wasn't seeing anymore was people like me, who can't drive a car
> after sunset, thanks to LASIK.
>
> So maybe SE served a function in making the point to surgeons that they
> can create a 20:20 result and still be the cause of crappy vision in
> their patients if they don't screen better.
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-24, 7:10 pm

> I ain't got no beef against Ron, it was his baby, so, I wanted his
>perpspective.
>
>He probably will ignore it.

Or threaten to sue you.

Ron Link

2004-12-25, 2:07 am

Hi Simpledog,

Happy Christmas to you and yours. Just got in from visiting with
relatives.

Thank you for your comment: "I thought he was helpful, but probably got
worn down with all the negativity." It is the most accurate statement
that has been written here and an insightful reflection as to what
happened to me and by extension, to SEF. Thankfully, it is being
transformed into another patient advocate entity.

More important than anything - thank you for your service to our
country. If there is anything that I can do for you at any point now or
in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please email me
(ronjohnlink@aol.com)as to how to best reach you as my email address is
due to change shortly.

I read, think and worry about our troops every single day. A close
friend is retired from the United States Air Force and he served in
Vietnam. We have had many a talk about what you and others are going
through. Stay safe and know that you have our unwavering support and
respect.

Best Regards,

Ron

Simpledog wrote:
> Since Ron started a good thing, and it died. And through his web, I
met
> some good docs, I'd like to ask him personally.
>
> Why did SEF die? Repeated answers from previous threads not
required.
>
> Please don't give me a canned "it moved on". You used to have dozens
of
> docs posting, and postings coming in every minute. You used to do
some good
> things, and SEF is still the magnet for those who may have
complications,
> although now they find a defunct site, void of access.
>
> What happened Ron? I deserve an answer, because I gave you 30
dollars of
> the 30k you want.
>
> Hell, that Doc Grant, he used to post 50 times a week.

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-25, 2:07 am

You were right Simpledog, he ignored the question.

Simpledog

2004-12-25, 11:08 am

Hey, in 10 days, I'm going back to !#$%#!!@#$ Mosul, that WAS safe.

"Ron Link" <ronjohnlink@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1103952562.576011.23720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Simpledog,
>
> Happy Christmas to you and yours. Just got in from visiting with
> relatives.
>
> Thank you for your comment: "I thought he was helpful, but probably got
> worn down with all the negativity." It is the most accurate statement
> that has been written here and an insightful reflection as to what
> happened to me and by extension, to SEF. Thankfully, it is being
> transformed into another patient advocate entity.
>
> More important than anything - thank you for your service to our
> country. If there is anything that I can do for you at any point now or
> in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please email me
> (ronjohnlink@aol.com)as to how to best reach you as my email address is
> due to change shortly.
>
> I read, think and worry about our troops every single day. A close
> friend is retired from the United States Air Force and he served in
> Vietnam. We have had many a talk about what you and others are going
> through. Stay safe and know that you have our unwavering support and
> respect.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ron
>
> Simpledog wrote:
> met
> required.
> of
> some good
> complications,
> dollars of
>

Simpledog

2004-12-25, 7:09 pm

I don't get much crap. Maybe once a week someone will fire a stray mortar
round our way. I stay in the same place (camp) when in Mosul that those
guys got hit in that tent by the suicide bomber. Up until recently Mosul
was really quiet, because it had been mostly Kurdish, and they have no beef
with us. Although, now there are a lot of Shiites there since Sadam tried
to clear out the Kurds and put in the Shiites over the last few years.
Rumor has it that a lot of the bad guys moved out of Fallujah, and headed
north. Oh well.

I'm an engineer, putting together/repairing the telecommunications within
Mosul, and other areas. I'm a real life civil service person, not a
contractor. There are about 6 Iraqi's, and 4 or 5 contractors from Nortel
(although they may not come back after last week) working with us. We also
usually have one hummer with a SAW working with us providing security.
Normal day is to go out and find out what fiber, or what 200 pair got cut,
go out, repair it, then go back to the switch, and bring circuits and phones
up.

Then the next day some XXXXXXX will cut half of them, usually to steal the
metal, to sell for 5 cents or something. We are trying to rebuild the
country, and 10% of the country, mostly Shiites, are trying to kill us or
anyone else that is helping us do it.

Oh well, the pay is good. All tax free.

Ron, I ain't got no beef with you, just like I don't with anyone trying to
help. The only thing that irks me is that, while a contributing member,
because I deviated from the party line about a year ago with a simple post
here, I think it was Hertzok or some other OD on SE got pissed after reading
a post on alt.lasik, and my "account" got suspended. That irritated me. It
was immature. I can't even remember what I said, but it was in this NG, and
definitely not anti-SE but if I remember I was irritated about something on
SE, surely not straight out of the talking papers that some in SE seem to
get. I am not here to get embroiled in the politics of lasik. I'm here,
keeping my toe in the pool, waiting until the technology is there for
farsighted WF, which can fix my minor issue. It's getting close, with VISX
already there, Alcon very soon, and B&L as well.

What I have learned is this: Nothing is perfect, and nobody can guarantee
you anything. During 2002-2003, I spent probably a grand going from doc to
doc, just seeing what they'd say. I was seeing the best on the west coast,
and one in NYC. Only until WF came out, did the answer start to become
consistant. Without getting into specifics, I would ask the question "What
is 2-2?" and I'd get "zero" or "5" or "a team that's not gonna make the
playoffs", etc. No two doctors would tell me the same thing. Dr. Nordan
said "There is NO fix for you at all - you should be happy with your
outcome". Nice guy, didn't charge me a cent, then get too rich to work, and
retired. That was a shocker. However now they are. Dr. Wallace, Dr.
Boxer-Wachler, original Doctor (Fabricant), Dr. Assil, and a few others.
No, I'm not a lasik-groupee, but now they all say the same thing, to a large
degree. A few say they can fix me now, but I'm waiting until the Alcon unit
comes out, and it get used for retreatments, then I'll drink a quart of
whiskey, and go do it.

I have an appointment with Maloney in March, which is about when Alcon
should have their WF for farsighted software approved, and then I'll make up
my mind.

"Ron Link" <ronjohnlink@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1103952562.576011.23720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi Simpledog,
>
> Happy Christmas to you and yours. Just got in from visiting with
> relatives.
>
> Thank you for your comment: "I thought he was helpful, but probably got
> worn down with all the negativity." It is the most accurate statement
> that has been written here and an insightful reflection as to what
> happened to me and by extension, to SEF. Thankfully, it is being
> transformed into another patient advocate entity.
>
> More important than anything - thank you for your service to our
> country. If there is anything that I can do for you at any point now or
> in the future, please do not hesitate to contact me. Please email me
> (ronjohnlink@aol.com)as to how to best reach you as my email address is
> due to change shortly.
>
> I read, think and worry about our troops every single day. A close
> friend is retired from the United States Air Force and he served in
> Vietnam. We have had many a talk about what you and others are going
> through. Stay safe and know that you have our unwavering support and
> respect.
>
> Best Regards,
>
> Ron
>
> Simpledog wrote:
> met
> required.
> of
> some good
> complications,
> dollars of
>

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2004-12-25, 10:07 pm

First, and foremost...I want to join Ron and everyone else here
thanking you for doing what you can to rebuild Iraq and get our men
home. You might be a private contractor, but that certainly doesn't
mean that you aren't working for ALL of us. The quicker that freedom
takes ahold of Iraq, the faster you all come home.

By the time you (and I) were "thrown out" of SE, it was Way out of Ron
Link's direct stewardship. Ron had times that he called people for
what they posted on SE, but he still cut everyone a very wide path of
disagreement and opinion.
Hartzok, Berney and the other thin-skinned band of swine that "took
over" SE had my XXX canned within months of Ron's departure. As far as
thin skins are concerned, my penchant for calling a swine a swine got
me thrown off of Rebecca's website in less than a month. (Which is a
record, even for me, I suppose. ;) )

There seems to be two choices for individuals looking for
information on the internet. There's this forum, which is as
"uncontrolled" as a shootout in the old West. (Hey Ragnar...you still
suck.) Then there are "controlled" forums that work so hard to be
politically correct that voices of dissention are quickly silenced. I
can't go play in their playground anymore if I keep talking about
optometrists doing laser surgery or the two-faced swine that make money
off of surgery patients by "selling" them on risky alternative
therapies like placenta tissue to repopulate the bulbar conjunctiva to
promote new tearing and goblet cell growth. Yeah, you guys know who
you are.

My good old-fashioned practice of optometry has grown (again), 15th
year in a row. For those of you who think that "anti-LASIK zealot
optometrists" make a living off of "trashing" LASIK, I proudly announce
that 1.01% of this year's gross income came from the fitting of reverse
geometry contact lenses on post-LASIK refractive surgery "disasters".
I have now spent more time, money and effort educating the consumer
about the dangers of bad refractive surgery than I had previously spent
on our local United Way campaigns. In contrast, LVI will spend more
money in Rockford on this Sunday's newspaper ads than I spent running a
website for 12 months. Sigh.

Simpledog wrote:
> I don't get much crap. Maybe once a week someone will fire a stray
mortar
> round our way. I stay in the same place (camp) when in Mosul that
those
> guys got hit in that tent by the suicide bomber. Up until recently
Mosul
> was really quiet, because it had been mostly Kurdish, and they have
no beef
> with us. Although, now there are a lot of Shiites there since Sadam
tried
> to clear out the Kurds and put in the Shiites over the last few
years.
> Rumor has it that a lot of the bad guys moved out of Fallujah, and
headed
> north. Oh well.
>
> I'm an engineer, putting together/repairing the telecommunications
within
> Mosul, and other areas. I'm a real life civil service person, not a
> contractor. There are about 6 Iraqi's, and 4 or 5 contractors from
Nortel
> (although they may not come back after last week) working with us.
We also
> usually have one hummer with a SAW working with us providing
security.
> Normal day is to go out and find out what fiber, or what 200 pair got
cut,
> go out, repair it, then go back to the switch, and bring circuits and
phones
> up.
>
> Then the next day some XXXXXXX will cut half of them, usually to
steal the
> metal, to sell for 5 cents or something. We are trying to rebuild
the
> country, and 10% of the country, mostly Shiites, are trying to kill
us or
> anyone else that is helping us do it.
>
> Oh well, the pay is good. All tax free.
>
> Ron, I ain't got no beef with you, just like I don't with anyone
trying to
> help. The only thing that irks me is that, while a contributing
member,
> because I deviated from the party line about a year ago with a simple
post
> here, I think it was Hertzok or some other OD on SE got pissed after
reading
> a post on alt.lasik, and my "account" got suspended. That irritated
me. It
> was immature. I can't even remember what I said, but it was in this
NG, and
> definitely not anti-SE but if I remember I was irritated about
something on
> SE, surely not straight out of the talking papers that some in SE
seem to
> get. I am not here to get embroiled in the politics of lasik. I'm
here,
> keeping my toe in the pool, waiting until the technology is there for

> farsighted WF, which can fix my minor issue. It's getting close,
with VISX
> already there, Alcon very soon, and B&L as well.
>
> What I have learned is this: Nothing is perfect, and nobody can
guarantee
> you anything. During 2002-2003, I spent probably a grand going from
doc to
> doc, just seeing what they'd say. I was seeing the best on the west
coast,
> and one in NYC. Only until WF came out, did the answer start to
become
> consistant. Without getting into specifics, I would ask the question
"What
> is 2-2?" and I'd get "zero" or "5" or "a team that's not gonna make
the
> playoffs", etc. No two doctors would tell me the same thing. Dr.
Nordan
> said "There is NO fix for you at all - you should be happy with your
> outcome". Nice guy, didn't charge me a cent, then get too rich to
work, and
> retired. That was a shocker. However now they are. Dr. Wallace, Dr.

> Boxer-Wachler, original Doctor (Fabricant), Dr. Assil, and a few
others.
> No, I'm not a lasik-groupee, but now they all say the same thing, to
a large
> degree. A few say they can fix me now, but I'm waiting until the
Alcon unit
> comes out, and it get used for retreatments, then I'll drink a quart
of
> whiskey, and go do it.
>
> I have an appointment with Maloney in March, which is about when
Alcon
> should have their WF for farsighted software approved, and then I'll
make up[vbcol=seagreen]
> my mind.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Ron Link" <ronjohnlink@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:1103952562.576011.23720@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
got[vbcol=seagreen]
statement[vbcol=seagreen]
now or[vbcol=seagreen]
me[vbcol=seagreen]
address is[vbcol=seagreen]
going[vbcol=seagreen]
and[vbcol=seagreen]
I[vbcol=seagreen]
dozens[vbcol=seagreen]

Simpledog

2004-12-26, 2:07 am

No problem. If I was closer, I'd come by for a fitting or two. Just for
the record, I'm NOT a contractor, I'm a GS13 Civil Servant. All that means
is that I get paid less then they do, and I am the boss. I was informed by
email today that 2 of the contractors have found other work, and won't be
going back.

This is a recent video in Mosul. 2 months ago, this never happened.

http://www.ogrish.com/archives/2004...ed_in_mosul.wmv

What worries me is most of the work we have to do, is up in Mosul. And
things are going to sh*t real quick up there from what I understand. A lot
of the baddies have moved up from Fallujah.

I'll be going back Jan 3rd.

I just remember finding SE, a week after surgery, and it was so
robust....many postings, people helping...etc.

<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1104031691.973348.279330@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> First, and foremost...I want to join Ron and everyone else here
> thanking you for doing what you can to rebuild Iraq and get our men
> home. You might be a private contractor, but that certainly doesn't
> mean that you aren't working for ALL of us. The quicker that freedom
> takes ahold of Iraq, the faster you all come home.
>
> By the time you (and I) were "thrown out" of SE, it was Way out of Ron
> Link's direct stewardship. Ron had times that he called people for
> what they posted on SE, but he still cut everyone a very wide path of
> disagreement and opinion.
> Hartzok, Berney and the other thin-skinned band of swine that "took
> over" SE had my XXX canned within months of Ron's departure. As far as
> thin skins are concerned, my penchant for calling a swine a swine got
> me thrown off of Rebecca's website in less than a month. (Which is a
> record, even for me, I suppose. ;) )
>
> There seems to be two choices for individuals looking for
> information on the internet. There's this forum, which is as
> "uncontrolled" as a shootout in the old West. (Hey Ragnar...you still
> suck.) Then there are "controlled" forums that work so hard to be
> politically correct that voices of dissention are quickly silenced. I
> can't go play in their playground anymore if I keep talking about
> optometrists doing laser surgery or the two-faced swine that make money
> off of surgery patients by "selling" them on risky alternative
> therapies like placenta tissue to repopulate the bulbar conjunctiva to
> promote new tearing and goblet cell growth. Yeah, you guys know who
> you are.
>
> My good old-fashioned practice of optometry has grown (again), 15th
> year in a row. For those of you who think that "anti-LASIK zealot
> optometrists" make a living off of "trashing" LASIK, I proudly announce
> that 1.01% of this year's gross income came from the fitting of reverse
> geometry contact lenses on post-LASIK refractive surgery "disasters".
> I have now spent more time, money and effort educating the consumer
> about the dangers of bad refractive surgery than I had previously spent
> on our local United Way campaigns. In contrast, LVI will spend more
> money in Rockford on this Sunday's newspaper ads than I spent running a
> website for 12 months. Sigh.
>
> Simpledog wrote:
> mortar
> those
> Mosul
> no beef
> tried
> years.
> headed
> within
> Nortel
> We also
> security.
> cut,
> phones
> steal the
> the
> us or
> trying to
> member,
> post
> reading
> me. It
> NG, and
> something on
> seem to
> here,
>
> with VISX
> guarantee
> doc to
> coast,
> become
> "What
> the
> Nordan
> work, and
>
> others.
> a large
> Alcon unit
> of
> Alcon
> make up
> got
> statement
> now or
> me
> address is
> going
> and
> I
> dozens
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-26, 4:07 am

> As far as
>thin skins are concerned, my penchant for calling a swine a swine got
>me thrown off of Rebecca's website in less than a month. (Which is a
>record, even for me, I suppose. ;) )

Naw. I got ya beat.

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.

Tabby

2004-12-26, 7:10 pm

OK, Folks out there will be dying to know what you said to get kicked
off both these websites! Can you remember?

doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> First, and foremost...I want to join Ron and everyone else here
> thanking you for doing what you can to rebuild Iraq and get our men
> home. You might be a private contractor, but that certainly doesn't
> mean that you aren't working for ALL of us. The quicker that freedom
> takes ahold of Iraq, the faster you all come home.
>
> By the time you (and I) were "thrown out" of SE, it was Way out of
Ron
> Link's direct stewardship. Ron had times that he called people for
> what they posted on SE, but he still cut everyone a very wide path of
> disagreement and opinion.
> Hartzok, Berney and the other thin-skinned band of swine that "took
> over" SE had my XXX canned within months of Ron's departure. As far
as
> thin skins are concerned, my penchant for calling a swine a swine got
> me thrown off of Rebecca's website in less than a month. (Which is a
> record, even for me, I suppose. ;) )
>
> There seems to be two choices for individuals looking for
> information on the internet. There's this forum, which is as
> "uncontrolled" as a shootout in the old West. (Hey Ragnar...you
still
> suck.) Then there are "controlled" forums that work so hard to be
> politically correct that voices of dissention are quickly silenced.
I
> can't go play in their playground anymore if I keep talking about
> optometrists doing laser surgery or the two-faced swine that make
money
> off of surgery patients by "selling" them on risky alternative
> therapies like placenta tissue to repopulate the bulbar conjunctiva
to
> promote new tearing and goblet cell growth. Yeah, you guys know who
> you are.
>
> My good old-fashioned practice of optometry has grown (again), 15th
> year in a row. For those of you who think that "anti-LASIK zealot
> optometrists" make a living off of "trashing" LASIK, I proudly
announce
> that 1.01% of this year's gross income came from the fitting of
reverse
> geometry contact lenses on post-LASIK refractive surgery "disasters".
> I have now spent more time, money and effort educating the consumer
> about the dangers of bad refractive surgery than I had previously
spent
> on our local United Way campaigns. In contrast, LVI will spend more
> money in Rockford on this Sunday's newspaper ads than I spent running
a[vbcol=seagreen]
> website for 12 months. Sigh.
>
> Simpledog wrote:
> mortar
> those
> Mosul
> no beef
Sadam[vbcol=seagreen]
> tried
> years.
> headed
> within
a[vbcol=seagreen]
> Nortel
> We also
> security.
got[vbcol=seagreen]
> cut,
and[vbcol=seagreen]
> phones
> steal the
> the
> us or
> trying to
> member,
simple[vbcol=seagreen]
> post
after[vbcol=seagreen]
> reading
irritated[vbcol=seagreen]
> me. It
this[vbcol=seagreen]
> NG, and
> something on
> seem to
> here,
for[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> with VISX
> guarantee
from[vbcol=seagreen]
> doc to
west[vbcol=seagreen]
> coast,
> become
question[vbcol=seagreen]
> "What
> the
> Nordan
your[vbcol=seagreen]
> work, and
Dr.[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> others.
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> a large
> Alcon unit
quart[vbcol=seagreen]
> of
> Alcon
I'll[vbcol=seagreen]
> make up
probably[vbcol=seagreen]
> got
> statement
what[vbcol=seagreen]
> now or
> me
> address is
close[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
> going
> and
web,[vbcol=seagreen]
> I
> dozens
do[vbcol=seagreen]

Simpledog

2004-12-26, 7:10 pm

I think you meant Dr. Minarik, but here was my travesty.

http://groups-beta.google.com/group...df45f4765ad1b83

It comes down to this. 95% of the Doc's out there just want to help, and
make money doing so, 4% just want to make money, and 1% are the types that
travel to the East Congo and help with AIDS victims. Got no beef with that.
Those 95% of the posting doctors all got run off, mostly by the layman
running that site. What happened to them all? You can't get to the site
now, but go back 3 years.....there used to be some SERIOUS talent making
comments on that board.

I like Glenn, Dr. G, Ron, really everyone, because nobody has been short of
helpful to me. But if you run a BBS like how SE had been run in the last 2
years, death is inevitable. If you turn it into a moderated board, fine,
but realize that smart people by nature are competitive. They are gonna
say things that differ. Then camps formed, and those who didn't want to
participate in politics just stopped posting, and the camp that fell out of
favor, got kicked off. Then, to improve things, SE went from being a
moderated "delete the thread" board to a "I BANISH YOU TO HELLLLLL!!!!" web
site. And in another vain attempt to isolate themselves from those they
grew to dislike, they charged for access which was WAY too high. - which
not only killed off the clientele, but did nothing to stop whoever in the
'enemy' camp access. As if.

I still have the email Hertzok sent me after my travesty. I mean, this guy
spent 6 years in school, right? I mean, that's what pissed me off. I had
sent those guys money, not a large sum, but 10 bucks here, 10 bucks there,
etc. And because I said something about Glenn and DR. G about WF, BLAM I'm
gone.

Whoever acquires SEF, needs to understand why it started, and then what it
became.

For me, I'll lurk a while longer...then off to Disneyland in Iraq!

"Tabby" <tabby_english@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1104082522.749595.39510@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> OK, Folks out there will be dying to know what you said to get kicked
> off both these websites! Can you remember?
>
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
> Ron
> as
> still
> I
> money
> to
> announce
> reverse
> spent
> a
> Sadam
> a
> got
> and
> simple
> after
> irritated
> this
> for
> from
> west
> question
> your
> Dr.
> to
> quart
> I'll
> probably
> what
> close
> in
> web,
> do
>

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-26, 7:10 pm

Well said Simpledog, and from my perspective as one of those "cast to
Hell", quite accurate. In fact, I believe I hold the dubious
distinction as having been the first removed from a bulletin board
that was theoretically for open discussion, but devolved into a LASIK
hate-fest. Actually, I've been the first one twice now.

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.

Simpledog

2004-12-26, 7:10 pm

Glenn,

Who will own the SEF name? If it's a non profit, it can't be owned, can it?

"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:dh2us0he1hejkutn8s9e9eb3etcbc8avpl@4ax.com...
> Well said Simpledog, and from my perspective as one of those "cast to
> Hell", quite accurate. In fact, I believe I hold the dubious
> distinction as having been the first removed from a bulletin board
> that was theoretically for open discussion, but devolved into a LASIK
> hate-fest. Actually, I've been the first one twice now.
>
> 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.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2004-12-26, 10:07 pm

In both cases, I was told that my eviction came from a number of
offenses, but the final ones were the ones that broke that myopic
camel's back. The SEF boot came when I chimed in on a thread about how
optometrists perform PRK in VA hospitals. I played "devil's advocate"
and emphasized that optometrists are better versed in geometrical
optics and physics and understand the visual optics much better than an
ophthalmologist can. I emphasized that optometrists are not surgeons,
but surgeons seem to enjoy being optometrists. That kind of rhetoric
got me booted off of SE. Supposedly I pissed of Trattler and the other
MDs that feed the Foundation regularly.

As far as LME is concerned, I pissed them off when I pulled the "Doctor
G's Post-Op LASIK Victim Committed Suicide" Thread over into this wild
west discussion. Some people view my bringing that story over here as
a lack of compassion, I still believe it belongs here because the
population of arrogant assholes who say hurtful things about the
visually disabled need to know that there are consequences caused by
their hurtfulness.

I agree with everything that Simpledog has said. Everyone needs a
little paranoia, but there are limits to "political correctness". I
have a hard time finding those limits.
Tabby wrote:[vbcol=seagreen]
> OK, Folks out there will be dying to know what you said to get kicked
> off both these websites! Can you remember?
>
> doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
doesn't[vbcol=seagreen]
freedom[vbcol=seagreen]
> Ron
of[vbcol=seagreen]
far[vbcol=seagreen]
> as
got[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
> still
> I
> money
> to
who[vbcol=seagreen]
> announce
> reverse
"disasters".[vbcol=seagreen]
> spent
more[vbcol=seagreen]
running[vbcol=seagreen]
> a
stray[vbcol=seagreen]
that[vbcol=seagreen]
recently[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
> Sadam
and[vbcol=seagreen]
telecommunications[vbcol=seagreen]
not[vbcol=seagreen]
> a
from[vbcol=seagreen]
us.[vbcol=seagreen]
> got
> and
rebuild[vbcol=seagreen]
kill[vbcol=seagreen]
> simple
> after
> irritated
> this
I'm[vbcol=seagreen]
> for
> from
> west
> question
make[vbcol=seagreen]
Dr.[vbcol=seagreen]
> your
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> Dr.
> to
> quart
> I'll
with[vbcol=seagreen]
> probably
> what
being[vbcol=seagreen]
our[vbcol=seagreen]
point[vbcol=seagreen]
email[vbcol=seagreen]
> close
served[vbcol=seagreen]
> in
support[vbcol=seagreen]
> web,
to[vbcol=seagreen]
> do

Glenn - USAEyes.org

2004-12-26, 10:07 pm

>Who will own the SEF name? If it's a non profit, it can't be owned, can it?

It can be owned, but only by a nonprofit unless you want to pay a
whole lot of penalties.

Any nonprofit that closes or is bankrupt must liquidate its assets to
pay off all debts, and then provide what remains to a nonprofit of
similar purpose.

When SurgicalEyes was created, by law they would have been required to
predetermine the type of nonprofit function its beneficiary would be
in the event they cease to be a viable organization. Assumably this
would be a nonprofit that provides patient services to those who have
refractive surgery related problems, but without looking at their
papers I'm only making an educated guess.

It is possible for a for-profit or an individual to own the
SurgicalEyes name/assets, but only if they retroactively pay all
relevant taxes as if they had been a for-profit since day-one, plus
significant penalties.

As far as I know, the only real asset SurgicalEyes has is its name and
domain. All else is inconsequential. They don't even have a donors
list that would be of much value anymore. There is so much baggage
attached the SurgicalEyes name that a new organization would be
spending more to get out from under the cloud of that name than would
be gained by its recognition, IMO.

The domain is probably more valuable, but not to very many. A
nonprofit like CRSQA, Rebecca's LaserMyEye.org, or the American
Society of Cataract and Refractive Surgeons' LasikInstitute.org would
benefit from traffic gained by forwarding SurgicalEyes' URLs, but
those links have lost so much ground in Internet search engines that
it would be difficult to come up with a real value.

Considering the open hostility against CRSQA by those associated with
SurgicalEyes, the manner by which Rebecca was unceremoniously kicked
off the SurgicalEyes bulletin board, and the general feeling around
the ASCRS folks I know (wouldn't touch SurgicalEyes with a ten foot
pole), I assume SurgicalEyes would seek a different beneficiary of the
remaining assets. I assume that the "new" organization recently
formed in Illinois with most of the same SE people would attempt to
close down SurgicalEyes while retaining as many assets as possible.
There is some question as to the legality of this kind of move as it
would appear to be an end-run around legitimate debtors.

From semi-reliable sources it appears SurgicalEyes is about $50k to
$65k in debt, most of which is money and wages claimed by Ron Link and
the potential penalties for nonpayment/late payment of those same
wages. If you eliminate Link's claims, the debt is negligible. CRSQA
is well positioned to pay these debts for the SurgicalEyes assets and
would probably be a qualifying nonprofit, but acrimony is such that it
seems unlikely they would even consider such an offer.

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.

doctor_my_eye@msn.com

2004-12-27, 7:09 pm

It appears that Ragnar was on a holiday and had no time to put any of
his filthy stench on this thread yet. Ahh, don't worry. He appears to
be back, and I can't wait to see what the psychological rapist will do
with the humanity in this thread.