|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > June 2005 > LasikDisaster.com is a website of anti-lasik propaganda
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
LasikDisaster.com is a website of anti-lasik propaganda
|
|
| Ragnar 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| I can't recall any time you haven't lied. You never give the same
story twice.
Here's one since you asked for it.
You claim that you weren't a representative nor agent nor in anyway
affiliated with Surgical Eyes nor Ron Link other than to donate a
small amount of money to SE and participate in the SE forums. We
won't even discuss that you posted in those forums under many aliases
which was against even their policies.
I know that you are in fact affiliated with them. They have used you
as a stooge to distribute their whacko-anti-lasik propaganda for them.
They feed you garbage and you in turn dump it on us.
On 10 Jun 2005 19:55:19 -0700, "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com -
LASIKmemorial.com" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>It's sad that my sarcastic response to your accusation at the time went
>so far over your head that you took it seriously. Now that I tell you
>that I don't get drunk, you say you doubt that I got drunk. Is this
>what you consider being smart?
>
>Why do you consider lasikdisaster.com to be boring now? Is it because
>my lasik diary is gone? For your information, I have been working on
>trying to get the state attorney general's case against my former
>optometrist dropped. It is my desire that he be forgiven, but the
>case is not mine and they really don't care how I feel about it.
>Removing the story was done in a effort to let bygones be bygones and
>move on.
>
>Now, let's see how much you can mangle this one. Have at it,
>Christopher!
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| And I guess that makes you a representative and agent of Google groups.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-11, 9:04 am |
| On 10 Jun 2005 22:47:53 -0700, "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com -
LASIKmemorial.com" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>And I guess that makes you a representative and agent of Google groups.
Google has nothing to do with the alt.lasik-eyes newsgroup nor any
newsgroup other than they choose to carry it. I'm amazed that you
haven't figured that out by now. Various companies host their own
groups, but the nntp newsgroups are not hosted by google nor anybody
else. They are a part of the internet structure itself.
I'm impressed with your message otherwise! You didn't deny being a
liar as I pointed out below. I think its rather interesting that the
core of your entire internet presence is based upon a lie. You are a
front for SE and you can't deny it.
You claim that you weren't a representative nor agent nor in anyway
affiliated with Surgical Eyes nor Ron Link other than to donate a
small amount of money to SE and participate in the SE forums. We
won't even discuss that you posted in those forums under many aliases
which was against even their policies.
I know that you are in fact affiliated with them. They have used you
as a stooge to distribute their whacko-anti-lasik propaganda for them.
They feed you garbage and you in turn dump it on us.
On 10 Jun 2005 19:55:19 -0700, "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com -
LASIKmemorial.com" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>It's sad that my sarcastic response to your accusation at the time went
>so far over your head that you took it seriously. Now that I tell you
>that I don't get drunk, you say you doubt that I got drunk. Is this
>what you consider being smart?
>
>Why do you consider lasikdisaster.com to be boring now? Is it because
>my lasik diary is gone? For your information, I have been working on
>trying to get the state attorney general's case against my former
>optometrist dropped. It is my desire that he be forgiven, but the
>case is not mine and they really don't care how I feel about it.
>Removing the story was done in a effort to let bygones be bygones and
>move on.
>
>Now, let's see how much you can mangle this one. Have at it,
>Christopher!
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-06-12, 8:54 am |
| And that would make you a front for Google.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-12, 8:54 am |
| Notice how evasive Keller is with this topic I have presented again
below. I wonder if anybody is interested why she is being so
evasive. If nobody is interested, I won't bother to discuss this
further. Since everyone probably realizes by now that she is a
pathological liar with no credibility nor relevance, it's possible
nobody cares.
On 11 Jun 2005 22:10:10 -0700, "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com -
LASIKmemorial.com" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>And that would make you a front for Google.
=====================================
Google has nothing to do with the alt.lasik-eyes newsgroup nor any
newsgroup other than they choose to carry it. I'm amazed that you
haven't figured that out by now. Various companies host their own
groups, but the nntp newsgroups are not hosted by google nor anybody
else. They are a part of the internet structure itself.
I'm impressed with your message otherwise! You didn't deny being a
liar as I pointed out below. I think its rather interesting that the
core of your entire internet presence is based upon a lie. You are a
front for SE and you can't deny it.
You claim that you weren't a representative nor agent nor in anyway
affiliated with Surgical Eyes nor Ron Link other than to donate a
small amount of money to SE and participate in the SE forums. We
won't even discuss that you posted in those forums under many aliases
which was against even their policies.
I know that you are in fact affiliated with them. They have used you
as a stooge to distribute their whacko-anti-lasik propaganda for them.
They feed you garbage and you in turn dump it on us.
| |
| Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com - LASIKmemorial.com 2005-06-13, 8:55 am |
| What good would it do to answer your accusations? You just run around
in circles with my responses, which seem to always confuse you.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-13, 8:55 am |
| Nobody seems to care about your silly website - which doesn't surprise
me.
Unless someone is interested in what a liar you are, I'll just let
this one go.
On 12 Jun 2005 21:58:31 -0700, "Sandy - LASIKdisaster.com -
LASIKmemorial.com" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>What good would it do to answer your accusations? You just run around
>in circles with my responses, which seem to always confuse you.
| |
| Sandy 2005-06-15, 12:20 pm |
| It has had millions of visitors and I've received thousands of emails
but you must be right so we'll just agree that no one cares about
www.lasikdisaster.com
What's new?
| |
|
| You are a hoot. Anybody that types the word LASIK into any search
engine such as Google triggers a "hit" on your website which you call
a visitor. That is meaningless.
As for thousands of e-mails. So what? I get at least 50 business
related e-mails per day and another 200 assorted e-mals per day almost
none of which I want. That's 1500 relevant e-mails per month and 6000
garbage e-mails.
I get at least 1000 e-mails per day that get filtered out of my mail
and I never even see them.
It sure doesn't look like anyone in this newsgroup is buying your lies
and mistrepresentations these days.
On 13 Jun 2005 19:13:00 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>It has had millions of visitors and I've received thousands of emails
>but you must be right so we'll just agree that no one cares about
>www.lasikdisaster.com
>
>What's new?
| |
| Sandy 2005-06-15, 10:54 pm |
| >You are a hoot. Anybody that types the >word LASIK into any search
>engine such as Google triggers a "hit" on >your website which you call
>a visitor.
What???? If this were true, lasik surgeons would be in big trouble
financially.
You don't understand how lasik works, and you don't understand how the
internet works either. What can you write about intelligently?
| |
| serebel 2005-06-15, 10:54 pm |
|
Sandy wrote:
>
> What???? If this were true, lasik surgeons would be in big trouble
> financially.
>
> You don't understand how lasik works, and you don't understand how the
> internet works either. What can you write about intelligently?
RM,
you smoked her out. If you refute Sandy's bullcrap, she says you must
be unintelligent.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-16, 8:55 am |
| She amazes me. I think the only person who is buying Sandy's garbage
is Sandy.
I'm shocked that she thinks that Google hosts the Usenet (newsgroups).
On 15 Jun 2005 20:02:26 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sandy wrote:
>
>
>RM,
>
>you smoked her out. If you refute Sandy's bullcrap, she says you must
>be unintelligent.
>
>SErebel
| |
|
| I don't think that, Christopher. But you think that everyone who types
"lasik" into a search engine goes to my site.
Unfortunately, what you don't understand that I am as involved with SE
as you are with Google. It was an ANALOGY, Chrissie. Got it?
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-18, 6:25 pm |
| You got it wrong again. Have you been taking lessons from Mr. Mason?
Not everyone that types "lasik" into a search engine goes to your
site. In fact, these days, very few people are fooled into going to
your site. However, as I just tested moments ago, using a web search
engine on the work lasik generates over a million results. Searches
generate hits on a website whether the user ever visited the site or
not.
Your analogy to google is garbage. I rarely use google. I never use
it to access the newsgroups. When I do searches, I do it with a
commercial program which combines the results of 15 different search
engines. Google is probably the best FREE search engine there is, but
I pay for professional / commercial search engines. Google isn't even
used by that integrated program.
What I was pointing out is that you denied being invovled with SE at
all other than to post your garbage on the SE website and to donate a
small amount of money to them. (By the way, for all your blabber
about LASIK, you weren't exactly very generous with your donation to
SE. It reminds me of someone I knew who was going to church for a
year and didn't realize that the church expected a tithe of 10% of his
income as a yearly donation. He decided $10 a month was sufficient.
The church more or less told him to stop attending their church)
Now, in your case, you were completely involved with SE. In fact, Ron
would feed you ridiculous stories and you would publish them for him
on LasikDisaster and this newsgroup.
Nobody here that doesn't already know about your complete lack of
integrity & credibility seems to be interested in hearing about it, so
I will spare them.
I'm surprised SERebel didn't e-mail me to ask what I'm referencing.
He already knows enough about you that any further information would
just be redundant. Unlike you and your links to other malcontent
whackos who plot silly schemes in the background, SERebel has never
e-mailed me. Probably because there isn't a need to!
Frankly, I'm amazed that nobody is believing your garbage anymore.
People are smarter and wiser than I gave them credit for. Even other
malcontents must sit there and read your trash and think "oh Sandy,
you really have gone off the deep end".
On 16 Jun 2005 18:21:51 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I don't think that, Christopher. But you think that everyone who types
>"lasik" into a search engine goes to my site.
>
>Unfortunately, what you don't understand that I am as involved with SE
>as you are with Google. It was an ANALOGY, Chrissie. Got it?
| |
|
| In article <h615b1d8n61iabvrsnd5g1dt27mqspq1lh@4ax.com>,
Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> SERebel has never
> e-mailed me. Probably because there isn't a need to!
Hear Hear. there isn't a need to because this thread is boring, stupid
and pointless. Sandy, if you stop responding maybe Ragnar will move
onto something else.
PS: Rags, why you insist on Sandy "coming clean" when you don't even use
your real name is BS. Newsflash for you here, there are many on this
list who use aliases and are "fed" info to post from many sources.
---hmmmm, come to think of it, I remember a few private emails you've
sent me blasting others on this list, trying to fish for my opinion on
the matter. Sorry--I won't play with you. You cannot expect others to
be "transparent" when you are not. BTW, what is your real name and
where do you live?
--
~RT
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-18, 6:25 pm |
| Well, the thread would die, except everytime it comes to that point,
someone sticks in one more item that needs correcting.
Below you say that I have e-mailed you privately a few times. That's
not exactly true. I e-mailed you once 8 months ago. One message
ever. And I was asking you why you were taking digs at me. As you
recall, you used to include me in your sign-off tagline in every one
of your messages. I wanted to know what your problem was. You seem
to have some obsession with me.
That message was virtually entirely about one particular nut who
stopped posting here months ago.
Doesn't really matter. I consider this thread ended unless you want
to fan the flames more.
On Fri, 17 Jun 2005 12:37:05 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <h615b1d8n61iabvrsnd5g1dt27mqspq1lh@4ax.com>,
> Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>Hear Hear. there isn't a need to because this thread is boring, stupid
>and pointless. Sandy, if you stop responding maybe Ragnar will move
>onto something else.
>
>PS: Rags, why you insist on Sandy "coming clean" when you don't even use
>your real name is BS. Newsflash for you here, there are many on this
>list who use aliases and are "fed" info to post from many sources.
>
>---hmmmm, come to think of it, I remember a few private emails you've
>sent me blasting others on this list, trying to fish for my opinion on
>the matter. Sorry--I won't play with you. You cannot expect others to
>be "transparent" when you are not. BTW, what is your real name and
>where do you live?
| |
|
| Thanks so much for being so efficient at always correcting and setting
everyone straight, Chrissie. It amuses me that you repond to
"Chrissie" anyway. LOL. Does living in an efficiency make you
efficient, or is it the other way around?
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-18, 6:25 pm |
| And are we not all glad to have an unemployed computer salesman to
correct everything for us all.
We love it that you are so darn knowledgeable Cliffy. I can't go to
sleep at night without checking this group for some more of your
amazing insights into vision and RS.
Wow, you must be president of MENSA you are so smart.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-18, 6:25 pm |
| If calling me Chrissie pleases you, go ahead and call me Chrissie.
Since that is not not my name, it really doesn't bother me at all.
As for an efficiency... I don't even know what that is. And what does
my name or my residence have to do with LASIK?
You have sunk to the level of 4 year old in your attacks.
On 17 Jun 2005 14:37:40 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Thanks so much for being so efficient at always correcting and setting
>everyone straight, Chrissie. It amuses me that you repond to
>"Chrissie" anyway. LOL. Does living in an efficiency make you
>efficient, or is it the other way around?
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-18, 6:25 pm |
| I'm surprised you post here at all. I don't think even Keller would
associate themselves with you and your incompetence and ignorance.
Although I am an expert at computer repair and configuration, I have
never been a computer salesman nor a salesman of any type.
I'm not a member of MENSA. I never applied, and never had the desire
to do so. I happen to think that intelligent people joining MENSA is
an oxymoron. Kind of like a jewish vegetarian entering a bbq pork
competition. Interestingly, one former prominent malcontent used to
boldly claim that he was a member of MENSA - as if anybody cared. I
don't believe him. What makes that story pathetic is that his mouth
and attitude wound up leaving him beaten up in an alley and left for
dead - resulting in permanent brain damage for which he lives off of
disability for the rest of his life. Assuming that he was ever a
member of MENSA, he sure isn't anymore. But I digress.
On 17 Jun 2005 14:44:33 -0700, "CatmanX" <grantm@connexus.net.au>
wrote:
>And are we not all glad to have an unemployed computer salesman to
>correct everything for us all.
>
>We love it that you are so darn knowledgeable Cliffy. I can't go to
>sleep at night without checking this group for some more of your
>amazing insights into vision and RS.
>
>Wow, you must be president of MENSA you are so smart.
>
>dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-18, 10:55 pm |
| I post here because it is fascinating to see what crap you can spurt.
I love how you can turn any discussion into a flaming competition which
ultimatrly has most posters leaving due to your pettiness.
You choose derogatory comments rather than any intellegent discussion
of fact, so I choose to call your bluff.
Cheers sweety,
dr grant
p.s. any job offers recently?
| |
|
| >You got it wrong again. Have you been taking lessons from Mr. Mason?
I have learned a few things from Dr. Mason's posts. I think you have
too, although you'd never admit to it.
>Not everyone that types "lasik" into a search engine goes to your
site.
Good. I am glad we are in agreement on that.
> In fact, these days, very few people are fooled into going to
your site.
I actually never had to fool anyone into visiting the site. They come
in droves, especially after news stories about lasik complications.
> However, as I just tested moments ago, using a web search
engine on the work lasik generates over a million results. Searches
generate hits on a website whether the user ever visited the site or
not.
Do they also generate page views? I know the answer, but do you?
>Your analogy to google is garbage. I rarely use google. I never use
it to access the newsgroups. When I do searches, I do it with a
commercial program which combines the results of 15 different search
engines. Google is probably the best FREE search engine there is, but
I pay for professional / commercial search engines.
Only you would pay for something that is free to the rest of us.
> Google isn't even
used by that integrated program.
Dumb program!
>What I was pointing out is that you denied being invovled with SE at
all other than to post your garbage on the SE website and to donate a
small amount of money to them.
>No, I did not say that was my only involvement.
> (By the way, for all your blabber
about LASIK, you weren't exactly very generous with your donation to
SE.
You have no clue what I donated.
> It reminds me of someone I knew who was going to church for a
year and didn't realize that the church expected a tithe of 10% of his
income as a yearly donation. He decided $10 a month was sufficient.
The church more or less told him to stop attending their church)
>Really? So do you think I'm not posting on SE because I was kicked off for insufficient donations?
>Now, in your case, you were completely involved with SE.
What does that mean, Chrissie?
>In fact, Ron
would feed you ridiculous stories and you would publish them for him
on LasikDisaster and this newsgroup.
>I cannot recall ever posting anything on www.lasikdisaster.com at Ron's request. He did run across a few items that he thought would be useful here and I did post them. So????
>Nobody here that doesn't already know about your complete lack of
integrity & credibility seems to be interested in hearing about it, so
I will spare them.
Thanks for your kindness/laziness/lack of something to say/....
>I'm surprised SERebel didn't e-mail me to ask what I'm referencing.
He already knows enough about you that any further information would
just be redundant. Unlike you and your links to other malcontent
whackos who plot silly schemes in the background, SERebel has never
e-mailed me. Probably because there isn't a need to!
>What does this person have to do with anything? I haven't see her/him post for a long, long time---but then, I have a filter blocking that name, so I wouldn't know.
>Frankly, I'm amazed that nobody is believing your garbage anymore.
People are smarter and wiser than I gave them credit for. Even other
malcontents must sit there and read your trash and think "oh Sandy,
you really have gone off the deep end".
Do you think I lose sleep wondering if people out there on the internet
think I've lost it? My family and friends matter to me, and what the
rest of the world thinks is a non-issue for me.
I know why you don't like www.lasikdisaster.com any longer. My diary
is gone, and with it went all of your glimpses into my personal life.
Now that it is mainly just information about lasik complications, it
bores you. Sorry about that. I hadn't considered the impact on you,
Chrissie, when I took the story off the site. Did you happen to print
it out when it was still available to you? I know something that you
would really get a kick out of---my attorney's deposition of my former
optometrist. My attorney was very charismatic and dramatic, and ended
the depo yelling at my OD.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-20, 5:55 pm |
| On 20 Jun 2005 13:12:39 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>Only you would pay for something that is free to the rest of us.
>
>used by that integrated program.
>
>Dumb program!
***It would seem dumb at first, but the sites it accesses are where
google get's it's information from. Including Google would just
create duplicate results. Believe me, the search results I get are
superior to google.
>
>
>all other than to post your garbage on the SE website and to donate a
>small amount of money to them.
>
**** Your involvement in SE was up to your ears, you have yet to
acknowlege that.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>about LASIK, you weren't exactly very generous with your donation to
>SE.
>
>You have no clue what I donated.
**** You donated $550 over a 3 year period. World record for PMS.
>
>it out when it was still available to you? I know something that you
>would really get a kick out of---my attorney's deposition of my former
>optometrist. My attorney was very charismatic and dramatic, and ended
>the depo yelling at my OD.
**** This is ironic... you aggressively attacked your OD.... until
the weasel cooperated with you. I recall that even within the last
month you have forgiven your OD. I rememmber years ago when you
outlined your MD and OD. Both of them were obviously bad doctors. In
fact, not only are they terrible doctors, but they allowed themselves
to be intimidated by your threats and harassment to the point of doing
ill-advised enhancements which are what caused the problems you have.
My surgeon would never succumb to your nonsense. I had him look over
your website. He said that virtually every point you were trying to
make was taken out of context, you didn't understand what you were
talking about, and your conclusions were all wrong. Other than that,
your site is great.
| |
| Sandy 2005-06-20, 10:55 pm |
| Your numbers are incorrect, but I didn't expect anything less than that
from you.
What do you mean when you say "the weasel cooperated with you"?
This group should be renamed alt.roiland-idiocy
|
| |
|
|