|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > July 2005 > Leukoma and LME still don't get it........
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 |
Leukoma and LME still don't get it........
|
|
| serebel 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Leukoma posted today at LME how he "saved the day" yet again.
A post lasik presented and he fit her "out of the box" into contacts.
What's wrong with this?
Before lasik she was -11 with high astigmatism. Post lasik she was able
to see. Not crisply, but she could see. True, at -11 and high astig.
her outdome would not be as predictable or as good as a lower myope
with less or no astigmatism. but post lasik, she could see. Before
lasik, at -11 with high astig. you can't see.
He's patting himself on the back and concluding that lasik destroyed
her vision. Lasik improved her vision, remember, post lasik she could
now see. At her original script she could not.
So how did lasik ruin her vision?
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| That is classic DrG. What an egomaniac. Rarely would a -11 with
severe astigmatism be completely corrected with just one procedure.
DrG should have told her to go for her expected enhancement surgery...
but no.. he decided to cash in on her himself - and take credit for
her visual improvement.
Even with contacts, it's a whole lot better to see good after lasik
and wear contacts to see great than it is to be virtually blind
without lasik and REQUIRE contacts or glasses to see at all.
On 24 Jun 2005 18:21:30 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>Leukoma posted today at LME how he "saved the day" yet again.
>
>A post lasik presented and he fit her "out of the box" into contacts.
>What's wrong with this?
>Before lasik she was -11 with high astigmatism. Post lasik she was able
>to see. Not crisply, but she could see. True, at -11 and high astig.
>her outdome would not be as predictable or as good as a lower myope
>with less or no astigmatism. but post lasik, she could see. Before
>lasik, at -11 with high astig. you can't see.
>He's patting himself on the back and concluding that lasik destroyed
>her vision. Lasik improved her vision, remember, post lasik she could
>now see. At her original script she could not.
>
>
>
>
>So how did lasik ruin her vision?
>
>
>SErebel
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
|
serebel wrote:
> Leukoma posted today at LME how he "saved the day" yet again.
>
> A post lasik presented and he fit her "out of the box" into contacts.
> What's wrong with this?
> Before lasik she was -11 with high astigmatism. Post lasik she was able
> to see. Not crisply, but she could see. True, at -11 and high astig.
> her outdome would not be as predictable or as good as a lower myope
> with less or no astigmatism. but post lasik, she could see. Before
> lasik, at -11 with high astig. you can't see.
> He's patting himself on the back and concluding that lasik destroyed
> her vision. Lasik improved her vision, remember, post lasik she could
> now see. At her original script she could not.
>
>
>
>
> So how did lasik ruin her vision?
I read Dr G's LME message. Nowhere did I see him claiming he "saved
the day". Or that LASIK ruined the patient's vision. 2.5 yrs post-op
the patient was 20:60 in one and 20:300 in the other eye. That was
after primary surgery with follow-up enhancements.
I see irony that with Dr G's RGPs the patient is now 20:20 with no
abberations or low-light glare. Exactly where she was before LASIK
when she wore contacts. In your opinion the patient's post-LASIK
vision was "okay". I wonder if you would have the same opinion if your
vision was 20:60 and 20:300.
What happened to empathy for patients? Or is that only for people not
involved with the "Nefarious Leukoma"? :-)
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Yes, Lou Coma rapes another innocent victim and gloats about it. We
should put together a kangaroo court with Cliffy "the hanging judge"
Rowland as magistrate and hang him from the highest branch.
How dare he fit a CL to a patient with poor vision. I bet he hangs
around the front doors of reputable laser centres and touts for
customers - "Hey little girl, do you want some boiled lollies, or an
RGP fix, Ive got blue ones and grey ones and a few green ones as well".
Yes, with 20/60 and 20/300 vision, I bet she never saw that good prior
to Lasik. She probably got to the laser centre with a seeing eye dog
and was so happy the nice surgeon blasted her eyes to clarity.
I think we should all take a minute to pray for the benevolence of the
Laser surgeon for solving the ladies problem and saving the world.
Halleluja, praise the Lasik.
dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| The problem here SErebel is that -11.00 ablations require a smaller
ablation zone, so there will be a lot of light entering the eye from
non-optical portions of the cornea. High cyls will require a smaller
ablation again. There will need to be a large blend zone, but this is
not an optical portion and will put a fuzzy zone on the retina.
Without seeing the topos, I would not be surprised that the ablation
zone is as small as 2-3mm, resulting in problems with daytime vision.
You could post on LME and ask Lou to post the topos to verify this.
dr grant
| |
| serebel 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
|
crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
> I read Dr G's LME message. Nowhere did I see him claiming he "saved
> the day". Or that LASIK ruined the patient's vision. 2.5 yrs post-op
> the patient was 20:60 in one and 20:300 in the other eye. That was
> after primary surgery with follow-up enhancements.
>
> I see irony that with Dr G's RGPs the patient is now 20:20 with no
> abberations or low-light glare. Exactly where she was before LASIK
> when she wore contacts. In your opinion the patient's post-LASIK
> vision was "okay". I wonder if you would have the same opinion if your
> vision was 20:60 and 20:300.
>
> What happened to empathy for patients? Or is that only for people not
> involved with the "Nefarious Leukoma"? :-)
You missed my point.
I never said that her post vision was okay. I said it was better than
her pre vision. She needed the RGPs to sharpen her vision. My point was
that she was able to see after lasik better than she could before.
Let's do the disaster scenerio.
Before lasik: A hurricane bears down on her house and she has to get
out fast. The wind whips in and her glasses get broken. She has to now
slowly grops her way out. She dies trying.
After lasik: Same hurricane, the wind whips in and destroys her contact
case. She gets up and being able to see, she runs to safety and lives
to get a new pair of RGPs the next week.
Now, how did lasik ruin her vision?
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Grant, you also missed my point. For point 1 see my answer to Kevin's
post.
For point 2, I know Leukoma can fit CL's, it's the grandstanding and
required XXX kissing that's involved.
Look at the subsequent posts on that LME thread where someone posts how
great he is and basically a saint. He then posts more "war" stories to
fluff his own ego.
The reason he doesn't post here any more is the missing obligatory XXX
kissing.
SErebel
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| You are right there. Point taken.
grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Look at another scenario: she is drivng down the street, pre-lasik with
her glasses and a boy runs across the street. He is wearing his
charcoal grey school uniform and it is early evening. She sees him and
stops in time.
Now she is driving post-lasik, the boy runs across the street, but
because she can't determine quickly enough that it is a person or
something blowing across the road she brakes too late and hits him.
My take here is that she had good corrected vision pre-lasik (sorry,
the optom in me always thinks of corrected vision, but I can understand
your thinking of vision without glasses) and now she has worse vision
post-lasik. I always look at functional vision, i.e. what you can do
with your everyday sight, and is your lifestyle affected either
positively or adversely.
grant
| |
| serebel 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Yes, she had good corrected vision before lasik, but couldn't see a
thing without the correction.
With the RGPs, she has good corrected vision after lasik, but can now
function visually when she pops her lenses out.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| First, the doctor posting under the fake alias of Leukoma, yet still
calling his ficticious alias a doctor, "revised" that very message
yesterday. He should have revised it more.
The patient was -11 to begin with and was undercorrected in both eyes
in her LASIK procedure. That is the proper thing to do in such a
severe case of steep corneas. You don't risk taking off too much
cornea on the initial procedure, hence the surgeon would undercorrect
and then do an enhancement.
The patient apparently had an enhancement to one eye, but she did not
have an enhancement to her other eye - which explains the 20/300. She
was going to have monovision done - which explains why the 2nd eye was
not yet enhanced. "Someone" seems to have convinced her AFTER her
initial LASIK surgery to forego the monovision adjustment. The
surgeon was not yet done with this patient.
Lastly, Leukoma takes pleasure in improving her vistion with RGP
contact lenses. Since that is his job, and the job of every
optometrist to fit patients for contact lenses and glasses, I don't
see why he is so pleased with himself for doing his job normally. He
didn't even do a fancy fitting job on her, a out-of-the-box pair he
had laying around did the job.
It's no secret that RGP lenses improve vision quite a bit. They
should be used much more often because soft lenses are more for
comfort than visual quality. The problem with RGP lenses is
tolerance. I wore them for many years with great success but lost my
tolerance of them over time. This is very common with RGP lenses.
Over time, people lose their tolerance for them. Glasses were
innefective for me - at least Leukoma has the sense to point out that
glasses have big limitations.
The surgeon should have been consulted with to discuss why the patient
wasn't following through with the monovision. Going from wearing RGPs
to having LASIK with RGPs is not the optimal outcome.
It would be nice if the doctor were as interested in his patient's
vision as his own ego.
That last line indicating that LASIK "robbed" her of her vision 2.5
years ago would be libelous if it were directed at a person rather
than the procedure. LASIK didn't rob her of anything.
Finally, the Snellen scores are hardly anything written in stone.
Snellan scores vary dependending on the optometrist and the
optometrist's biases - much like the role of a review of a movie by a
movie critic. A Snellan score is an opinion - and I don't believe
the 20/60 and 20/300 numbers. Even if those numbers are right, the
message above still applies.
On 25 Jun 2005 08:33:15 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>
>serebel wrote:
>
>I read Dr G's LME message. Nowhere did I see him claiming he "saved
>the day". Or that LASIK ruined the patient's vision. 2.5 yrs post-op
>the patient was 20:60 in one and 20:300 in the other eye. That was
>after primary surgery with follow-up enhancements.
>
>I see irony that with Dr G's RGPs the patient is now 20:20 with no
>abberations or low-light glare. Exactly where she was before LASIK
>when she wore contacts. In your opinion the patient's post-LASIK
>vision was "okay". I wonder if you would have the same opinion if your
>vision was 20:60 and 20:300.
>
>What happened to empathy for patients? Or is that only for people not
>involved with the "Nefarious Leukoma"? :-)
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
|
And furthermore... if someone wants to be taken seriously... I would
suggest that they not post their message on D'Eyealogues discussion
board. That board is run by infamous malcontent nutcase Rebecca
Petris.
Nobody can dispute that the D'Eyealogues discussion board is extremely
biased. When seeking out information, it's best not to go to a biased
source.
Here is an example of that. As I mentioned earlier, the Snellan
"20/20" scale is not much more valid than the number of stars a movie
critic assigns to a movie. I have had more than one optomitrest tell
me what their opinion of my vision was. Almost always their opinion
was that my vision is better than it is. I am partially to blame for
that since I am good at guessing letters on the chart and even
remembering them unintentionally. I have several Snellan charts of
my own, and I can even make custom ones (did you know the letter Q is
never used on a Snellan chart?) My vision is not as good as the some
doctors have told me.
Also, in the previous message, the "doctor" says the patient is 20/60
in one eye.. and 20/300 in the other eye. That is a misuse of the
Snellen system. The "20/20" scale is meant to be the resulting
overall visual quality of BOTH EYES acting as a team - which is
generally better than either of them by themselves. To say one is
20/60 in one eye and 20/300 in another is like saying "the engine on
the left wing alone can propel a plane to 200mph and the engine on
the right wing alone can propel a plane to 300mph" when the relevant
information is that the engineS together can propel the plane to about
400mph.
By the way.. on an unrelated issue - at one time I tried disposable
contacts. Those lenses were extremely comfortable, but had the side
effect of severe starbursts even under normal - fully lit lighting
conditions.
| |
| djken@optusnet.com.au 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| How long has Dr G been gone from this Ng and you are still obsessing
about him? Take a look around, no one of any calibre posts here
anymore. Certainly no one who has any "real" knowledge.
Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| I think it has been about 5 months. I don't obsess about him. He got
dragged into this recent thread due to an indirect reference to a post
he made on Rebecca Petris' website of D'eyealoges. That issue has
been covered sufficiently.
I wasn't aware that anyone of any calibre relating to LASIK ever
posted here. There was a great chiropracter posting here, but as far
as LASIK goes, being a chiropractor isn't very relevant. But he
wasn't trying to pass himself off as a lasik expert either. His posts
covered topics of medical practitioners in general.
As far as obsessing about him, I recall that someone was often trying
to get him posting here again. I'm not sure if that was you or
another Linda. I know there are at least 2 Lindas here. He isn't
difficult to get ahold of. His ego is boundless and he responds to
all messages and e-mails - usually within hours.
I would like to see people ask simple - relevant questions here. This
group has been flooded with far too many "Twilight Zone" fanciful
tales of gloom and doom that are misleading, inaccurate, or just plain
false.
Perhaps the greatest weakness of this group is that people don't seem
to come here (or go anywhere) for information until AFTER they have
their LASIK done. I am guilty of the same thing. I think even the
malcontents will agree with that.
To conclude, I'm going to add one of my somehat unrelated concerns. I
mention it now because I'm sure I will forget about this later.
There are people who go to surgeons for consultations about having
some type of surgery done. This applies to surgeries of all types,
not just LASIK. A surgeon will ask them questions and the patient
will say something that disqualifies them as a candidate for that
surgery. Then they go to another surgeon and tell them a different
story and/or omit information so that they will get their surgery.
This is extremely dangerous. I just remembed a case where doctor
after doctor over a 9 year period refused to do surgery on a patient.
Then the patient learned enough to know what NOT to mention to the
surgeon. The surgeon did the surgery not knowing the full story - and
the patient was disappointed with the results. Who's fault is that?
The surgeon or the patient that was intentionally holding back or
lyiing about vital information?
On 26 Jun 2005 14:26:31 -0700, djken@optusnet.com.au wrote:
>How long has Dr G been gone from this Ng and you are still obsessing
>about him? Take a look around, no one of any calibre posts here
>anymore. Certainly no one who has any "real" knowledge.
>Linda
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-06-27, 10:04 am |
| Here's another disaster scenario: While making the 7-hour drive to
Denver my truck blew a tire. To make this drive I have to leave home
soon enough to reach my destination before sunset. The blown tire took
so long to be replaced that I was still on the interstate after sunset.
Suddenly I was nearly blind. By driving slowly with my high beams on
I could see the right-side while line well enough to stay on the road.
I could barely make out road signs and had to put up with irate drivers
unset with my high beams.
Another scenario: Three years and three different optometrists before
I found one able to fit me with RGPs. Fitting LASIK eyes with lenses
is as much art as science. I think most ODs are not interested in
learning it. Dr G deserves respect if only for his willingness to take
on the problem cases.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-06-27, 5:55 pm |
| Hey! I think it is fair to say that I have real knowledge of
refractive surgery issues and I'm still here. 8^)
I'll admit that I have not posted much lately, but there have not been
many posts that are asking questions than require the answers I may be
able to provide.
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-27, 5:55 pm |
| How long does it take you to change a tire? Didn't you carry a spare?
"Suddenly you were nearly blind" - how's that happen?
Why did you have your high beams on?
Assuming that your fanciful story is true, why did you stay on the
road being "nearly blind" on the interstate and blinding other
drivers with your high beams? Is killing yourself or some other
driver worth staying on the road? I would suggest you never take a 7
hour drive again.
Dr. G makes a career out of putting people into RGPs. I happen to
think that is a good idea even though his motivations are wrong. Too
many optometrists go for the easiest (and often least effective)
solution they can find.
As for problem cases, he seeks them out. Even when patients come in
for other reasons, he convinces them that they are "victims of lasik".
Linda was complaining yesterday about an obsession with him. Why are
you continuing to mention him here? I never mention him other than to
respond to silly messages that people like you post.
On 27 Jun 2005 07:53:54 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>Here's another disaster scenario: While making the 7-hour drive to
>Denver my truck blew a tire. To make this drive I have to leave home
>soon enough to reach my destination before sunset. The blown tire took
>so long to be replaced that I was still on the interstate after sunset.
> Suddenly I was nearly blind. By driving slowly with my high beams on
>I could see the right-side while line well enough to stay on the road.
>I could barely make out road signs and had to put up with irate drivers
>unset with my high beams.
>
>Another scenario: Three years and three different optometrists before
>I found one able to fit me with RGPs. Fitting LASIK eyes with lenses
>is as much art as science. I think most ODs are not interested in
>learning it. Dr G deserves respect if only for his willingness to take
>on the problem cases.
| |
| crvc@wyoming.com 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| How long does it take you to change a tire? Didn't you carry a spare?
"Suddenly you were nearly blind" - how's that happen?
Why did you have your high beams on?
Assuming that your fanciful story is true, why did you stay on the
road being "nearly blind" on the interstate and blinding other
drivers with your high beams? Is killing yourself or some other
driver worth staying on the road? I would suggest you never take a 7
hour drive again.
Thanks for the typical ignorant advice. If I wanted to make up
fanciful stories, I could do a better job than this.
I make the drive to visit relatives. 4WD truck tires should be
replaced in pairs, not singly. Also I don't take long trips without a
spare. I blew the tire, put the spare on and stopped at the first tire
store I found. The place was very busy and by the time the new tires
were mounted, balanced and installed it was sunset. This was in
Cheyenne. Seeing it was getting dark I expected I would have to find a
motel for the night. But it happened to be homecoming weekend at the
University of Wyoming and there were no vacant rooms anywhere in the
city. My options were to keep driving or spend the night in my truck.
So I drove. It was easier for me to read road signs with the high beams
on. This was in the days before miotic eye drops or RGPs. Once I
reached the outskirts of Denver I called my brother who came to collect
me so I wouldn't have to face city streets with my LASIK eyes. These
days I don't take long drives without miotics and lenses. Thank you,
LASIK.
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| It really depends on whether you call haloes and distortion functional.
Personally, I don't and spend most of my day resolving this issue with
patients.
Whether you feel that reducing the size of the correction is of real
benefit and makes one better for it is, of course, your opinion, but
most patients are not happy with it and want to see things sharply,
like they did before when they had their glasses on.
Functional vision relates to ADL's, or activities of daily living. Can
you do the things that you want to comfortably and efficiently? In this
ladies case, no, so improvement was necessary.
I would also argue you assertion she was better off as most -11.00's I
know (there is quite a few of them) are NEVER without their correction
within arms length, so the first thing they do on waking is reach for
their glasses. If their house were to blow down, the glasses would be
in place before the head left the pillow.
dr grant
| |
| CatmanX 2005-06-28, 11:08 pm |
| Sorry to correct you again Bozo, but Snellen notation of 20/20 is
defined as being able to resolve a letter 5 seconds of arc in size at a
distance of 20 feet. There is no requirement that it is done
monocularly or binocularly.
dr grant
| |
| Ragnar 2005-06-29, 11:52 am |
| You are not a good liar. Take some lessons from Keller.
Below you say "this was before the days of RGPs"... I assure you...
RGPs go back a long time. I was wearing RGPs about 20 years ago.
Also, what kind of yoyo drives a 4 wheel trive truck on 7 hour trips?
Maybe the next Indy 500 will be raced using tractors.
If 4 wheel drive vehicles change tires in pairs, then you better carry
2 spares.
And what gives you the right to drive with your high beam brights on
at a slow speed on an interstate highway? Should someone else wind up
in a body bag because you are in a rush to go see mommy in your pickup
truck with the bald tires?
On 28 Jun 2005 09:33:37 -0700, crvc@wyoming.com wrote:
>
>
>So I drove. It was easier for me to read road signs with the high beams
>on. This was in the days before miotic eye drops or RGPs. Once I
>reached the outskirts of Denver I called my brother who came to collect
>me so I wouldn't have to face city streets with my LASIK eyes. These
>days I don't take long drives without miotics and lenses. Thank you,
>LASIK.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-05, 12:08 pm |
|
> Also, what kind of yoyo drives a 4 wheel trive truck on 7 hour trips?
> Maybe the next Indy 500 will be raced using tractors.
>
Christopher, my husband and I both have 4WD trucks and drive them
everywhere. If anything, you just proved that you are a "yoyo".
Before you decide to apply for a driver's license, you should find
someone who drives to hang out with for at least five years. I say
that because you've been hanging around your lasik docs for over two
years now and still you don't grasp the most basic of concepts.
For now, stick with your tricycle please.
| |
| serebel 2005-07-05, 10:55 pm |
| Keep proving my point about Keller. Who the f... would need two 4WD
trucks in sunny Torrence Cal. ?
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-06, 8:56 am |
| Madam, you are hopeless.
And why doesn't it surprise me that both you and your husband drive 4
wheel drive trucks? And it also doesn't surprise me that you drive
them everywhere. Those 4WD trucks are real good for driving to the
Piggly Wiggly. (sarcasm)
On 5 Jul 2005 07:48:08 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
>Christopher, my husband and I both have 4WD trucks and drive them
>everywhere. If anything, you just proved that you are a "yoyo".
>
>Before you decide to apply for a driver's license, you should find
>someone who drives to hang out with for at least five years. I say
>that because you've been hanging around your lasik docs for over two
>years now and still you don't grasp the most basic of concepts.
>
>For now, stick with your tricycle please.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Madam, you are hopeless.
> And why doesn't it surprise me that both you and your husband drive 4
> wheel drive trucks? And it also doesn't surprise me that you drive
> them everywhere. Those 4WD trucks are real good for driving to the
> Piggly Wiggly. (sarcasm)
>
>
Must be a Florida thing---never heard of it. Is that the name of your
preschool?
I enjoy the added height of 4WD; plus as an option, it increases the
resale value of the vehicle. I like being able to see over the cars in
front of me and anticipate traffic conditions better. What do you have
against a mother of three driving an Expedition? I fill the back with
merchandise for my business at least twice a week. What do you have
against a father of three, do-it-yourselfer/electrician driving a Ford
crewcab? It really came in handy Monday when we went to Home Depot
with all three kids and bought two king palms and a sago palm. They
surely wouldn't have fit in your pink and purple tricycle basket.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-07-06, 6:06 pm |
| Piggly Wiggly is a chain of grocery stores that were popular in the
east and the south. I believe that now they are only in Illinois and
Wisconsin.
If you ever watch "Driving Miss Daisy", Jessica Tandy's character
gives Morgan Freeman's character a hard time about the route he takes
to deliver her to the "Piggly Wiggly".
I love their URL: http://www.shopthepig.com/
Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
http://www.USAEyes.org
http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
I am not a doctor.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-06, 10:58 pm |
| When I am done turning our newly completed construction zone into a
tropical paradise, I might have time to watch the movie. Cool website.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-07, 8:54 am |
| You are a hopeless malcontent as nutty as a fruitcake.
By the way, as anybody who ever watches a movie knows, Piggly Wiggly
is a chain of supermarkets. It was made famous by Morgan Freeman and
Jessica Tandy in the movie "Driving Miss Daisy" Not only is that
movie very well known, but many many comedians have parodies the scene
where Morgan tries to drive Miss Daisy to the Piggly Wiggly.
On 6 Jul 2005 11:58:21 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>Must be a Florida thing---never heard of it. Is that the name of your
>preschool?
>
>I enjoy the added height of 4WD; plus as an option, it increases the
>resale value of the vehicle. I like being able to see over the cars in
>front of me and anticipate traffic conditions better. What do you have
>against a mother of three driving an Expedition? I fill the back with
>merchandise for my business at least twice a week. What do you have
>against a father of three, do-it-yourselfer/electrician driving a Ford
>crewcab? It really came in handy Monday when we went to Home Depot
>with all three kids and bought two king palms and a sago palm. They
>surely wouldn't have fit in your pink and purple tricycle basket.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-07, 8:54 am |
| I think the movie in which the character Hoek is given a hard time by
Miss Daisy is actually a parody of the film and is called Riding Miss
Daisy. I don't watch movies like that, but I believe he takes 2 or 3
different routes in his deliveries.
On Wed, 06 Jul 2005 19:06:03 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Piggly Wiggly is a chain of grocery stores that were popular in the
>east and the south. I believe that now they are only in Illinois and
>Wisconsin.
>
>If you ever watch "Driving Miss Daisy", Jessica Tandy's character
>gives Morgan Freeman's character a hard time about the route he takes
>to deliver her to the "Piggly Wiggly".
>
>I love their URL: http://www.shopthepig.com/
>
>Glenn Hagele
>Executive Director
>USAEyes.org
>
>"Consider and Choose With Confidence"
>
>Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
>
>http://www.USAEyes.org
>http://www.ComplicatedEyes.org
>
>I am not a doctor.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| I think you are the real malcontent, Christopher. All you do is
criticize and find fault with people who don't share your views. You
seem to find real satisfaction in trying to make people look bad, as if
it makes you look any better or smarter. When you think you score
against a doctor, that seems to thrill you even more. Wow.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| I criticize and find fault with people who mislead others with false
infomation, liars and people who make up fake stories such as
yourself. You never did come up with an explanation on that husband
who didn't have a key to his own house. That one was a ripe story.
Did you make it up yourself or did some looney tell you the lie and
you trusted them that the story was true?
You know, I did study a bit of psychology in college. Many of the
conditions such as schizophrenia are exhibited by most people to some
degree. Other conditions are rarely if ever seen. I think you might
just be the only patholgical liar I have ever seen, other than your
brain damaged co-conspirator whom uses you for doing his deeds. The
two of you are incapable of telling the truth. I am no psychiatrist,
but perhaps someone out there would like to comment on a theory of
mine. When the truth does not support one's actions or statements, or
when someone lacks the common sense or knowlege to communicate
effectively, they resort to lies to put forth their agenda. This
becomes an irresistable crutch over time. Another means of
compensating for a lack of rational communication is to use potty
language or other vulgarities.
On 7 Jul 2005 18:22:24 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
> I think you are the real malcontent, Christopher. All you do is
>criticize and find fault with people who don't share your views. You
>seem to find real satisfaction in trying to make people look bad, as if
>it makes you look any better or smarter. When you think you score
>against a doctor, that seems to thrill you even more. Wow.
| |
|
| In article <4jlsc19sj0l4vp4sk1r15d19r4ean4sp0n@4ax.com>,
Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You never did come up with an explanation on that husband
> who didn't have a key to his own house.
It's a medical fact that people who lack compassion also lack
imagination. Something to do with brain cells being in the same general
region.
Try on this scenario--wife locks herself in bathroom, attempts suicide.
Husband tries to lure her out, she refuses. Husband tries to break
through locked door but is unable. Husband goes outside and climbs into
the bathroom through the window. Oh no, wait. window locked. Husband
lobs rock through window to break glass and then climbs through.
Anything to get to his wife whom he loves.
Maybe you have Aspberger's Rags. Have you ever been evaluated? It's
not a bad thing. there have been many extremely intelligent people with
Aspbergers. It does affect your ability to interact socially. and your
level of compassion for others.
Here's an online diagnosis tool:
Asberger's Syndrome and Asperger's Disorder - Online Diagnosis. New
Treatments, January 22, 2005
<http://www.medical-library.org/jour...ndrome/1_asperg
ers_syndrome.htm>
And here's some general information:
Asperger's Syndrome
http://users.wpi.edu/~trek/aspergers.html
--
~RT
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| Oh brother.. how long did you spend dreaming up that ridiculous
scenario?
On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 11:32:54 GMT, RT <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <4jlsc19sj0l4vp4sk1r15d19r4ean4sp0n@4ax.com>,
> Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>It's a medical fact that people who lack compassion also lack
>imagination. Something to do with brain cells being in the same general
>region.
>
>Try on this scenario--wife locks herself in bathroom, attempts suicide.
>Husband tries to lure her out, she refuses. Husband tries to break
>through locked door but is unable. Husband goes outside and climbs into
>the bathroom through the window. Oh no, wait. window locked. Husband
>lobs rock through window to break glass and then climbs through.
>Anything to get to his wife whom he loves.
>
>Maybe you have Aspberger's Rags. Have you ever been evaluated? It's
>not a bad thing. there have been many extremely intelligent people with
>Aspbergers. It does affect your ability to interact socially. and your
>level of compassion for others.
>
>Here's an online diagnosis tool:
>Asberger's Syndrome and Asperger's Disorder - Online Diagnosis. New
>Treatments, January 22, 2005
><http://www.medical-library.org/jour...ndrome/1_asperg
>ers_syndrome.htm>
>
>And here's some general information:
>Asperger's Syndrome
>http://users.wpi.edu/~trek/aspergers.html
| |
| blindedsailor 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| Yes... it does seem that Ragnar has some major psychopathology. Real head
problems.
He needs to see a shrink so that he can finally admit to himself that he was
damaged by
LASIK and get off his denial crusade for good.
"RT" <RTMD24@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:RTMD24-25F1AB.07325208072005@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
> In article <4jlsc19sj0l4vp4sk1r15d19r4ean4sp0n@4ax.com>,
> Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> It's a medical fact that people who lack compassion also lack
> imagination. Something to do with brain cells being in the same general
> region.
>
> Try on this scenario--wife locks herself in bathroom, attempts suicide.
> Husband tries to lure her out, she refuses. Husband tries to break
> through locked door but is unable. Husband goes outside and climbs into
> the bathroom through the window. Oh no, wait. window locked. Husband
> lobs rock through window to break glass and then climbs through.
> Anything to get to his wife whom he loves.
>
> Maybe you have Aspberger's Rags. Have you ever been evaluated? It's
> not a bad thing. there have been many extremely intelligent people with
> Aspbergers. It does affect your ability to interact socially. and your
> level of compassion for others.
>
> Here's an online diagnosis tool:
> Asberger's Syndrome and Asperger's Disorder - Online Diagnosis. New
> Treatments, January 22, 2005
> <http://www.medical-library.org/jour...ndrome/1_asperg
> ers_syndrome.htm>
>
> And here's some general information:
> Asperger's Syndrome
> http://users.wpi.edu/~trek/aspergers.html
>
> --
> ~RT
>
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| If you ever truly loved someone, Christopher, that scenario would be
completely understandable to you.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-09, 12:17 pm |
| Futhermore, any human being with even an ounce of decency would break a
window to save a life. I suppose that Christopher is unable to fathom
the thought.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-10, 8:56 am |
| You sure don't know when to quit. Your fictional story of the husband
who doesn't have a key to his own house yet knows his looney wife is
in the house trying to kill herself is disgusting.
If you were in the house trying to kill yourself, your husband should
ask himself "should I break a perfectly good window?"
Incidentally.. modern windows are not easy to break. It would be far
easier to use a crowbar on a door or window to pry it open..
On 9 Jul 2005 08:23:21 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Futhermore, any human being with even an ounce of decency would break a
>window to save a life. I suppose that Christopher is unable to fathom
>the thought.
| |
| serebel 2005-07-10, 10:50 pm |
| If Sandy were the model for this story, I'd put bars on the window and
nail the door shut and count my blessings.
SErebel
| |
|
| Christopher, my husband risked his life to save me once, in Hawaii. I
slipped on a rock and just about went over a waterfall, and he severely
bruised his tailbone in the rescue attempt. It's nice to know that
someone loves you enough to do something like that for you....
| |
|
|
Sandy wrote:
> Christopher, my husband risked his life to save me once, in Hawaii. I
> slipped on a rock and just about went over a waterfall, and he severely
> bruised his tailbone in the rescue attempt. It's nice to know that
> someone loves you enough to do something like that for you....
Hi Sandy,
You must be a glutton for punishment! Ragnar/Christopher is never going
to have a nice word to say about you. If you won the Nobel Peace prize,
he would still criticize you. Just ignore him!
Linda
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-14, 8:58 am |
| And your reason for walking along the rim of a waterfall was?
I pity your husband also. He wasn't in danger of breaking his
tailbone though. He must be spineless to put up with you.
On 12 Jul 2005 22:32:34 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Christopher, my husband risked his life to save me once, in Hawaii. I
>slipped on a rock and just about went over a waterfall, and he severely
>bruised his tailbone in the rescue attempt. It's nice to know that
>someone loves you enough to do something like that for you....
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-14, 8:58 am |
| Ignore me? I wish!
I thought I was pretty nice in not picking on her unfortunate kid.
I'm sure the kid appreciates mom telling the world about his
deficiencies... while at the same time taking responsibility for
nothing herself.
I know a thing or two about what makes kids like that. I used to
tutor a lot of kids with problems - for free I might add.
Often learning and behavioral deficiencies are the direct result of a
much larger problem that the child is dealing with and studies and
normal behavior are not a relatively insignificant in comparision to
the big problem. For instance, if a kid has parents that are
fighting constantly, the child isn't likely to be able to concentrate
on doing their homework or studying for that test the next day. In
Keller's case, I can just imagine the non-stop load of B.S. that kid
must endure 365 days a year (366 in leap years). The kid probably
has zero self-esteem after being subjected to a daily dose of
irrational behaviors.
On 13 Jul 2005 02:02:46 -0700, "Linda" <djken@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>
>Sandy wrote:
>
>Hi Sandy,
>You must be a glutton for punishment! Ragnar/Christopher is never going
>to have a nice word to say about you. If you won the Nobel Peace prize,
>he would still criticize you. Just ignore him!
>Linda
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-14, 11:53 am |
| Ragnar/Christopher is my entertainment. It's impossible to take him
seriously, and I don't.
Chrissie, my son is not "deficient" any more than anyone else is.
Everyone on this planet is less than perfect. For what it's worth, I
probably have ADHD too, although it's never been diagnosed. I jump
from project to project and get distracted easily. My desk is a mess
of papers everywhere. I don't watch TV much, because I don't like to
sit still for long. I've been having a blast during the construction
of our new home, because there is dirt everywhere, and shovels to move
it with! Sod to plant, palm trees, zillions of flowers, sprinker lines
to run....when it's all done, I will have to find other ways to keep
myself busy. My youngest, who is the one with ADHD, has been the
biggest help to me during this time in our lives. He has the most
energy and I adore his zest for life. I love him just the way he is.
By the way, since he was jumping all over even in the womb, I have to
discount your theory about parents acting irrationally as pure
nonsense, which is typical of you anyway.
| |
| Sandy 2005-07-14, 11:53 am |
| We took the Road to Hana in Maui, Hawaii and visited the Seven Sacred
Pools. Our neighbor back at home had told me that if we did nothing
else, we had to dip at least a toe in one of those pools.
I was about 3 weeks out from Weinman's disastrous enhancement of my
right eye, and wasn't seeing very well. The rocks along the sides of
the pools appeared to be dry, but the last one I stepped on wasn't and
I slipped. I was able to grab onto the last big rock before going over
a fall into the next pool, and I held on until my husband reached me
and helped me back up. The casualty was our new video camera. When he
saw me fall, my husband hurriedly set it on a rock, but it got wet and
took two days to dry out. Luckily, it started working again in Oahu,
and the tape in it wasn't destroyed. I think I lost my expensive
sunglasses in the water, and had to ride back to Wailea soaking wet.
My husband isn't spineless. He has suffered the fallout of many of my
"adventures", such as lasik, but he loves me and has stood by me
through it all. Believe me, it has required strength and self-control
to put up with me for all of these years.
Christopher, any interest in my German customer? It would be nice if
you could one day experience such love and acceptance.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| Hmm.. neighbor had you going to pools to get yourself flushed away by
waterfall. Is this the same neighbor who is suing you for moving the
property line and stealing their property? The same one who you told
your son to intentionally provoke so you could film the encounter on
your videocamera?
Whee...
"Using one's children as bait.. next on Geraldo"
On 14 Jul 2005 09:46:04 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>We took the Road to Hana in Maui, Hawaii and visited the Seven Sacred
>Pools. Our neighbor back at home had told me that if we did nothing
>else, we had to dip at least a toe in one of those pools.
>
>I was about 3 weeks out from Weinman's disastrous enhancement of my
>right eye, and wasn't seeing very well. The rocks along the sides of
>the pools appeared to be dry, but the last one I stepped on wasn't and
>I slipped. I was able to grab onto the last big rock before going over
>a fall into the next pool, and I held on until my husband reached me
>and helped me back up. The casualty was our new video camera. When he
>saw me fall, my husband hurriedly set it on a rock, but it got wet and
>took two days to dry out. Luckily, it started working again in Oahu,
>and the tape in it wasn't destroyed. I think I lost my expensive
>sunglasses in the water, and had to ride back to Wailea soaking wet.
>
>My husband isn't spineless. He has suffered the fallout of many of my
>"adventures", such as lasik, but he loves me and has stood by me
>through it all. Believe me, it has required strength and self-control
>to put up with me for all of these years.
>
>Christopher, any interest in my German customer? It would be nice if
>you could one day experience such love and acceptance.
| |
|
| You are such a goon. We didn't steal anyone's property. It was
legally ours, and they were trying to steal it from us. In our
attorney's words, they were attempting a "land grab". We got it back,
but not without a fight. I was running the camera every day because
the father has such a foul mouth and was screaming obscene names at my
kids when they were in our own backyard. I didn't know that he was
going to take it any further than that, but I was lucky the camera was
running when he did.
The neighbor who told us about the sacred pools is a friend, which is
probably a foreign concept to you.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| Once again...your stories change... as always.
On 15 Jul 2005 13:46:39 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>You are such a goon. We didn't steal anyone's property. It was
>legally ours, and they were trying to steal it from us. In our
>attorney's words, they were attempting a "land grab". We got it back,
>but not without a fight. I was running the camera every day because
>the father has such a foul mouth and was screaming obscene names at my
>kids when they were in our own backyard. I didn't know that he was
>going to take it any further than that, but I was lucky the camera was
>running when he did.
>
>The neighbor who told us about the sacred pools is a friend, which is
>probably a foreign concept to you.
| |
|
|
Ragnar wrote:
> Once again...your stories change... as always.
Go to:
http://www.lasuperiorcourt.org/civi...?CaseType=Civil
Case number is YC047824.
You'll see that the neighbors sued us; not the other way around.
You'll also see that there was a mediation, and the case was dismissed.
Our neighbor accepted a plea bargain in the battery case, and now has
a criminal record. We got our land back, but it cost us a bunch of
money.
Our courts are clogged with easement cases. As valuable as real estate
is here, you'd think they'd pass legislation in California requiring a
survey when property is purchased. We bought land in Oklahoma years
ago, and they require one. Of course, such legislation would make for
some very unhappy real estate attorneys.
| |
| Father Douglas 2005-07-20, 2:12 pm |
| that's spit
|
| |
|
|