|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > This group has really gone to the dump...look at the statistics,
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 |
This group has really gone to the dump...look at the statistics,
|
|
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-23, 5:56 pm |
| >From usenet:
About alt.lasik-eyes About this group
Activity: Medium
Description:
Categories: Other
Usenet: >
Activity: Medium
Members: 10-100
Access: =B7 Public - Usenet
Atom feeds: 100 New topics
15 New topics
100 New messages
15 New messages
About Atom feeds
Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1998 2 14 5 4 4 17 9 9 6 5 51
1999 48 24 57 36 48 72 114 82 93 78 111 169
2000 192 157 180 311 206 311 593 648 455 684 630 895
2001 1156 827 593 317 362 221 334 170 271 159 123 145
2002 111 239 586 388 443 323 264 318 215 167 395 480
2003 432 649 2258 2415 1455 1097 1162 832 914 794 910 871
2004 749 820 785 962 1149 690 364 455 538 885 689 743
2005 1214 417 380 675 558 303 461 462
This month's top posters
107 glenn.hagelestops...@usaeyes.org
101 sere...@aol.com
45 ragnarsu...@yahoo.com
21 s...@savvysneaks.com
15 j...@yahoo_nospam.com
14 eyesr...@aol_nospam.com
13 cat...@yahoo_nospam.com
10 rtm...@nospamyahoo.com
10 m...@yahoo_nospam.com
10 samregretsla...@nospam_aol.com
All time top posters
4336 ragnarsu...@yahoo.com
2418 glenn.hag...@usaeyes.org
1096 drgNOS...@leukoma.com
1055 sere...@aol.com
1051 sandykelle...@netscape.net
1039 glenn.hageleSTOPS...@USAeyes.org
957 glenn.hagelestops...@usaeyes.org
904 d...@leukoma.com
865 glenn.hageleSTOPS...@USAEyes.org
784 tneda...@ipa.net
There's nothing like 7800 postings from Ragnar, Rebel and Glenn to
make the industry look safe. Yeah, right.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-23, 10:59 pm |
| How "safe" refractive surgery looks is totally subjective to the
viewer. It is considered medically safe and effective, but even that
is subjective.
Our multiple evaluations of multiple physicians at multiple locations
indicates that about 3% of refractive surgery patients have some sort
of unresolved problem at six months post op with 0.5% having serious
problems requiring extensive maintenance and/or invasive correction.
For some, that is way too much. For others, it is an acceptable risk -
acceptable enough to consider refractive surgery and be evaluated.
Every patient is different and every potential outcome is different.
Only after a complete examination by a competent eye physician and
discussion of those findings can a patient make a reasonably informed
decision, and even there is still risk. There is always risk, no
matter how "safe" the surgery.
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.
| |
| serebel 2005-08-23, 10:59 pm |
|
doctor_my_eye@msn.com wrote:
>
> There's nothing like 7800 postings from Ragnar, Rebel and Glenn to
> make the industry look safe. Yeah, right.
By what logic do you conclude this? Or what the hell have you been
smoking?
SErebel
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| What I have concluded here, Bryce, is that the "LASIK Advocacy
Position" here has been taken over by a lonely homosexual computer
geek, a secretive Phd rabble-rouser and a paid shill for the industry.
I don't see any credentials on any of you that should make you
believable in the eyes of the casual observer.
| |
| doctor_my_eye@msn.com 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| Oh, yeah...I guess I might be wrong on that one. Sometimes Ragnar
isn't lonely, and occasionally Glenn doesn't get paid.
Budda boom.
| |
| Richard 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| "doctor_my_eye@msn.com" <doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in
news:1124904707.464560.255710@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com:
> Oh, yeah...I guess I might be wrong on that one. Sometimes Ragnar
> isn't lonely, and occasionally Glenn doesn't get paid.
> Budda boom.
>
There are plenty of loons on the other side of the issue in this newsgroup
as well.
--
Richard
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-24, 5:54 pm |
| I make no apology for being paid to do the work I do. I doubt you do
either, doctor.
As to the quality of the information I provide; for years I have had a
standing request for anyone to point out where I have made an
inaccurate statement of fact, or if anything on our website is
inaccurate. I'll make appropriate changes immediately.
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 2005-08-24, 10:54 pm |
| Any you should include that there is a percentage of people who have
serious eye problems. These eye problems are not the result of
LASIK. Having LASIK done does not prevent one from getting glaucoma,
macular degeneration, detached retinas, cataracts, etc. In fact,
LASIK patients have a LOWER incidence of serious eye problems... not
because LASIK prevented these problems, but because LASIK patients are
screened and the most problematic people do not have LASIK done.
That said, it should be noted that the myopic eye is much more prone
to eye problems.
Anyway.. the bottom line is that LASIK is the safest, most
predictable, most beneficial surgery ever performed. And if anyone
disagrees with that, I invite them to name a single surgery which is
safer, more predictable, or provides more benefits.
On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:50:17 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>How "safe" refractive surgery looks is totally subjective to the
>viewer. It is considered medically safe and effective, but even that
>is subjective.
>
>Our multiple evaluations of multiple physicians at multiple locations
>indicates that about 3% of refractive surgery patients have some sort
>of unresolved problem at six months post op with 0.5% having serious
>problems requiring extensive maintenance and/or invasive correction.
>For some, that is way too much. For others, it is an acceptable risk -
>acceptable enough to consider refractive surgery and be evaluated.
>
>Every patient is different and every potential outcome is different.
>Only after a complete examination by a competent eye physician and
>discussion of those findings can a patient make a reasonably informed
>decision, and even there is still risk. There is always risk, no
>matter how "safe" the surgery.
>
>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.
| |
| Simpledog 2005-08-25, 9:01 am |
| The problem is still this. People cannot disagree without being idiots.
This has driven off numerous doctors, intelligent layman and 90% of the
people you're trying to help. The only caveat I have is Ragnar, who I don't
understand a bit.
Glenn,
I didn't get your email. I'll probably call you from Baghdad as I come back
in March for a reference to European docs. Damn Shiites are acting up
today. I'd prefer not to go back this time....oh well.
<doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1124826621.551791.326440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>From usenet:
About alt.lasik-eyes About this group
Activity: Medium
Description:
Categories: Other
Usenet: >
Activity: Medium
Members: 10-100
Access: · Public - Usenet
Atom feeds: 100 New topics
15 New topics
100 New messages
15 New messages
About Atom feeds
Archive
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
1998 2 14 5 4 4 17 9 9 6 5 51
1999 48 24 57 36 48 72 114 82 93 78 111 169
2000 192 157 180 311 206 311 593 648 455 684 630 895
2001 1156 827 593 317 362 221 334 170 271 159 123 145
2002 111 239 586 388 443 323 264 318 215 167 395 480
2003 432 649 2258 2415 1455 1097 1162 832 914 794 910 871
2004 749 820 785 962 1149 690 364 455 538 885 689 743
2005 1214 417 380 675 558 303 461 462
This month's top posters
107 glenn.hagelestops...@usaeyes.org
101 sere...@aol.com
45 ragnarsu...@yahoo.com
21 s...@savvysneaks.com
15 j...@yahoo_nospam.com
14 eyesr...@aol_nospam.com
13 cat...@yahoo_nospam.com
10 rtm...@nospamyahoo.com
10 m...@yahoo_nospam.com
10 samregretsla...@nospam_aol.com
All time top posters
4336 ragnarsu...@yahoo.com
2418 glenn.hag...@usaeyes.org
1096 drgNOS...@leukoma.com
1055 sere...@aol.com
1051 sandykelle...@netscape.net
1039 glenn.hageleSTOPS...@USAeyes.org
957 glenn.hagelestops...@usaeyes.org
904 d...@leukoma.com
865 glenn.hageleSTOPS...@USAEyes.org
784 tneda...@ipa.net
There's nothing like 7800 postings from Ragnar, Rebel and Glenn to
make the industry look safe. Yeah, right.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| Yo, Dog,
Drop me a line so I'm sure to have your email.
glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org
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 2005-08-25, 5:57 pm |
| If you don't understand me, you must have some mental limitations
yourself.
As for anyone being an idiot chasing away a doctor... the biggest
idiot in this newsgroup is probably DR. Minarik!
And the reason my posts and SERebels and Glenn's are high is because
we post using ONE alias, whereas many of the malcontents post under a
different alias every time they post to make it look like more people.
Often, one person will post under 4 different names all in the same
DAY.
On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:29:35 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
wrote:
>The problem is still this. People cannot disagree without being idiots.
>This has driven off numerous doctors, intelligent layman and 90% of the
>people you're trying to help. The only caveat I have is Ragnar, who I don't
>understand a bit.
>
>
>Glenn,
>
>I didn't get your email. I'll probably call you from Baghdad as I come back
>in March for a reference to European docs. Damn Shiites are acting up
>today. I'd prefer not to go back this time....oh well.
>
>
><doctor_my_eye@msn.com> wrote in message
>news:1124826621.551791.326440@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>About alt.lasik-eyes About this group
>
>Activity: Medium
>Description:
>Categories: Other
>Usenet: >
>Activity: Medium
>Members: 10-100
>
>Access: · Public - Usenet
>
>
>Atom feeds: 100 New topics
>15 New topics
>100 New messages
>15 New messages
>About Atom feeds
>
>
> Archive
> Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec
>1998 2 14 5 4 4 17 9 9 6 5 51
>1999 48 24 57 36 48 72 114 82 93 78 111 169
>2000 192 157 180 311 206 311 593 648 455 684 630 895
>2001 1156 827 593 317 362 221 334 170 271 159 123 145
>2002 111 239 586 388 443 323 264 318 215 167 395 480
>2003 432 649 2258 2415 1455 1097 1162 832 914 794 910 871
>
>2004 749 820 785 962 1149 690 364 455 538 885 689 743
>2005 1214 417 380 675 558 303 461 462
>
>
>
>
>This month's top posters
>107 glenn.hagelestops...@usaeyes.org
>101 sere...@aol.com
>45 ragnarsu...@yahoo.com
>21 s...@savvysneaks.com
>15 j...@yahoo_nospam.com
>14 eyesr...@aol_nospam.com
>13 cat...@yahoo_nospam.com
>10 rtm...@nospamyahoo.com
>10 m...@yahoo_nospam.com
>10 samregretsla...@nospam_aol.com
>
>All time top posters
>4336 ragnarsu...@yahoo.com
>2418 glenn.hag...@usaeyes.org
>1096 drgNOS...@leukoma.com
>1055 sere...@aol.com
>1051 sandykelle...@netscape.net
>1039 glenn.hageleSTOPS...@USAeyes.org
>957 glenn.hagelestops...@usaeyes.org
>904 d...@leukoma.com
>865 glenn.hageleSTOPS...@USAEyes.org
>784 tneda...@ipa.net
>
>
>
>There's nothing like 7800 postings from Ragnar, Rebel and Glenn to
>make the industry look safe. Yeah, right.
>
| |
| Sandy 2005-08-25, 10:57 pm |
| Yeah, Christopher, that would explain why Glenn is listed under 4
aliases instead of just one and why the count of those four is actually
5,279 posts. We need to look also for all of your Ryan, Ryan, etc.
etc. etc.--all those other aliases you've been using as well if we are
to get a true count.
It was really funny that one day when you forgot who you were and
posted as one alias under a different alias account.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-25, 10:57 pm |
| Although the report that Dr. Miniark posted shows me with four
different aliases (I don't know why), they are all virtually
identical, they all show my actual email address, they all show my
name and organization affiliation, and virtually every single one of
my posts has my standard signature with my name, my position, the
organization I represent, the URLs to our sister websites, my email
address, and that I am not a doctor.
It is just plain wrong to associate the multiple aliases easily
attributed to me in this one report with those who have used many
aliases to hide identity, to indicate someone is posting more or less
than the reality, or to indicate that more entities than one have a
particular opinion.
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.
| |
| Simpledog 2005-08-26, 8:57 am |
| Let me ask you one question Rags.
Why do you participate in this newsgroup? If you want to be a Dr. go to
medical school. That's one thing you have to respect Ron Link for.....he
went on to law school. Probably to sue the shit out of doctors...but non
the less........You had successful surgery, so...um.....isn't it time to
move on? I mean, what is it that you do?
Although Dr. M is passionate, and he probably needs to polish up the
"professional 101" book (no offense to Dr. M) any..and I mean ANY O.D. is
much more valuable than anything you could add. Not that you don't have a
brain, you just are a complete freak. I'd rather have touch up surgery at
the local Walmart OD's office than listen to you. And if I was close enough
to Dr. M, I'd go see him myself to get an opinion. Anyone who is passionate
about a subject AND is educated about it, has some good things you can take
away from him.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t98sg1db6af9htr34fm86066jffh9hrh0p@4ax.com...
> If you don't understand me, you must have some mental limitations
> yourself.
> As for anyone being an idiot chasing away a doctor... the biggest
> idiot in this newsgroup is probably DR. Minarik!
>
> And the reason my posts and SERebels and Glenn's are high is because
> we post using ONE alias, whereas many of the malcontents post under a
> different alias every time they post to make it look like more people.
> Often, one person will post under 4 different names all in the same
> DAY.
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:29:35 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
| |
| Simpledog 2005-08-26, 8:57 am |
| And the reason you and SE's and Glenn's posts are so high, are because you
post a lot. It's not that damn hard.
However, YOU don't add any substance to the discussion.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:t98sg1db6af9htr34fm86066jffh9hrh0p@4ax.com...
> If you don't understand me, you must have some mental limitations
> yourself.
> As for anyone being an idiot chasing away a doctor... the biggest
> idiot in this newsgroup is probably DR. Minarik!
>
> And the reason my posts and SERebels and Glenn's are high is because
> we post using ONE alias, whereas many of the malcontents post under a
> different alias every time they post to make it look like more people.
> Often, one person will post under 4 different names all in the same
> DAY.
>
>
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 06:29:35 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
| |
| ycdbsoya 2005-08-26, 5:55 pm |
| Hey SD, invite Rags to Iraq with you and have him be Point on your next
night time patrol.
| |
|
| Wisdom tooth extraction. Cataract surgery. There are two. Both are safer and
provide
more benefits than corneal refractive surgery.
LASIK patients have a much higher incidence of serious eye problems... one
should consider
loss of contrast senstitivity a serious eye problem. In Germany, over 70% of
patients who have
had LASIK cannot pass the driver's test for night driving. LASIK is likely
killing lots of innocents.
I can't believe someone as ignorant as you would attempt to provide a
medical opinion.
If LASIK is so predictable, why is the enhancement rate so high? Trying to
precisely sculpt
the cornea is like trying to sculpt jello. Not original with me, wish I know
who said that first.
LASIK damages every eye it touches, permanently.
"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:i97qg1dgvd36opsunofn2g8q720e1dugej@4ax.com...
> Any you should include that there is a percentage of people who have
> serious eye problems. These eye problems are not the result of
> LASIK. Having LASIK done does not prevent one from getting glaucoma,
> macular degeneration, detached retinas, cataracts, etc. In fact,
> LASIK patients have a LOWER incidence of serious eye problems... not
> because LASIK prevented these problems, but because LASIK patients are
> screened and the most problematic people do not have LASIK done.
> That said, it should be noted that the myopic eye is much more prone
> to eye problems.
> Anyway.. the bottom line is that LASIK is the safest, most
> predictable, most beneficial surgery ever performed. And if anyone
> disagrees with that, I invite them to name a single surgery which is
> safer, more predictable, or provides more benefits.
>
> On Wed, 24 Aug 2005 00:50:17 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
> <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>
>
| |
|
| Actually, most people in your shoes would be kind of ashamed... you do have
a great
deal to be ashamed of, and judgement day for you will be - well HARSH to
speak plainly.
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:1sipg1prlh4rng77e0c7fbotdr1etgpj24@4ax.com...
>I make no apology for being paid to do the work I do. I doubt you do
> either, doctor.
>
> As to the quality of the information I provide; for years I have had a
> standing request for anyone to point out where I have made an
> inaccurate statement of fact, or if anything on our website is
> inaccurate. I'll make appropriate changes immediately.
>
> 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.
| |
|
| Now that's funny! Thanks Sandy!
"Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote in message
news:1125015095.013987.88390@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Yeah, Christopher, that would explain why Glenn is listed under 4
> aliases instead of just one and why the count of those four is actually
> 5,279 posts. We need to look also for all of your Ryan, Ryan, etc.
> etc. etc.--all those other aliases you've been using as well if we are
> to get a true count.
>
> It was really funny that one day when you forgot who you were and
> posted as one alias under a different alias account.
>
| |
| serebel 2005-08-26, 10:54 pm |
| Hey, I wonder who the lunatic of the week is. Why it's Barb !!! I do
like the judgement day thing though.
BTW, that 70% German thing she posted is pure bull.
SErebel
| |
| Simpledog 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| I really don't like to engage in 'troll' activities, but this newsgroup, and
forums such as SE/LME/USAeye etc. could be so so much more valuable if
idiots weren't given free reign. But then censorship leads to monopolistic
ownership of the information, and that's just as bad. Witness SE.
"ycdbsoya" <the_boydstons@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1125075768.074147.302870@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Hey SD, invite Rags to Iraq with you and have him be Point on your next
> night time patrol.
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| The one German report with which I am familiar that makes such claims
was heavily promoted about three or four years ago by surgeon William
Jory in his futile campaign to convince the world that RK is superior
to LASIK, PRK, LASEK, or Epi-LASIK. It was widely disproved and is
generally considered inaccurate and unreliable information.
Just use a little common sense. If a high percentage of German LASIK
patients were not able to drive after surgery, nobody in Germany would
be getting LASIK.
That does not necessarily make LASIK "safest" (as if that really can
be quantified), but it most certainly is a different situation than
the scenario you attempt to present.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| I really worry about people who feel one should be ashamed about
disseminating substantiated facts regarding health care.
If you think something I have stated or anything on our website is
inaccurate, please indicate exactly what is not accurate and
substantiate your claim.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| Actually, I think that opinion is anonymous, not unanimous.
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.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-08-27, 8:55 am |
| You don't really believe that these additional one-name aliases are
from different people, do you?
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 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| I am not aware of any other aliases of Glenn.
My aliases were very rare, and resulted from my use of several
computers which are set up with different usernames. In fact, in one
situation, I think there were hundreds of my posts having a different
alias because my ISPs free usenet service was not getting the headers
from this group and I had to use my easynews premium pay service to
access this group. I use the pay service exclusively now.
Now it's pretty ripe that you of all people should be complaining
about this. You, the proven pathological liar of this group, have
posted under dozens of aliases intentionally. You have posted under
aliases of various genders and even have posed as entire families
(brother/sister, etc). In fact, you have even posted messages using
MY alias you lying, pathetic, mental case.
On 25 Aug 2005 17:11:35 -0700, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Yeah, Christopher, that would explain why Glenn is listed under 4
>aliases instead of just one and why the count of those four is actually
>5,279 posts. We need to look also for all of your Ryan, Ryan, etc.
>etc. etc.--all those other aliases you've been using as well if we are
>to get a true count.
>
>It was really funny that one day when you forgot who you were and
>posted as one alias under a different alias account.
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| I have studied quite a bit about medical things. In fact, I have
found that I know more than most doctors do about many things. It
seems that most doctors know their own tiny specialty (and sometimes
not even that) and know little or nothing about anything else medical.
Three critical factors in medical knowlege are caring, intelligence,
and common sense. Most doctors do not care about their patients, and
quite a few lack common sense.
As for the yoyo going to law school... my information is that he
flunked out before completing his first semester.
I am not aware of ANY of the malcontents in this newsgroup winning ANY
case in court - ever.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:06:41 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
wrote:
>Let me ask you one question Rags.
>
>Why do you participate in this newsgroup? If you want to be a Dr. go to
>medical school. That's one thing you have to respect Ron Link for.....he
>went on to law school. Probably to sue the shit out of doctors...but non
>the less........You had successful surgery, so...um.....isn't it time to
>move on? I mean, what is it that you do?
>
>Although Dr. M is passionate, and he probably needs to polish up the
>"professional 101" book (no offense to Dr. M) any..and I mean ANY O.D. is
>much more valuable than anything you could add. Not that you don't have a
>brain, you just are a complete freak. I'd rather have touch up surgery at
>the local Walmart OD's office than listen to you. And if I was close enough
>to Dr. M, I'd go see him myself to get an opinion. Anyone who is passionate
>about a subject AND is educated about it, has some good things you can take
>away from him.
>
>
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:t98sg1db6af9htr34fm86066jffh9hrh0p@4ax.com...
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| I really don't care who has posted the most messages. That is
Minarik's hobby to track. If you don't think I add any substance,
than you must be pretty ignorant. Name one person who has
contributed more of substance to this newsgroup. Other than Bryce
Carlson - who doesn't post anymore - I don't think you will be able to
name one.
On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:08:31 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
wrote:
>And the reason you and SE's and Glenn's posts are so high, are because you
>post a lot. It's not that damn hard.
>
>However, YOU don't add any substance to the discussion.
>
>
>"Ragnar" <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:t98sg1db6af9htr34fm86066jffh9hrh0p@4ax.com...
>
| |
| serebel 2005-09-24, 2:38 pm |
| There's no way Link just "went to law school". You need all kinds of
pre law in undergrad school. He's just full of it as in all his bull
stories.
SErebel
| |
| lindakendall3155@gmail.com 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
|
Ragnar wrote:
> I have studied quite a bit about medical things. In fact, I have
> found that I know more than most doctors do about many things. It
> seems that most doctors know their own tiny specialty (and sometimes
> not even that) and know little or nothing about anything else medical.
> Three critical factors in medical knowlege are caring, intelligence,
> and common sense. Most doctors do not care about their patients, and
> quite a few lack common sense.
I take exception to this. My brothers did 6 years at medical school
(Melbourne University). Both then specialised, requiring at least
another 6 years of study. In my experience, the vast majority of
doctors do care and most doctors have a very well rounded knowledge of
all things medical. Maybe it is because the standard of education
required to do medicine in this country (Australia) is so high and that
is why we (and Scottish doctors) are the best in the world. You cannot
possibly have more knowledge than correctly trained doctors and I am
astounded that you would even state this publicly!
Linda[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> As for the yoyo going to law school... my information is that he
> flunked out before completing his first semester.
> I am not aware of ANY of the malcontents in this newsgroup winning ANY
> case in court - ever.
>
>
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 06:06:41 GMT, "Simpledog" <cburnett1@san.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
a[vbcol=seagreen]
at[vbcol=seagreen]
ough[vbcol=seagreen]
nate[vbcol=seagreen]
ake[vbcol=seagreen]
s=2E[vbcol=seagreen]
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| That is true - which raises some serious questions about his veracity.
What is interesting is that unlike with other fields such as medicine,
one is not even required to go to law school to become a lawyer. All
they have ot do is pass a bar exam.
Even more odd is that a judge doesn't have to have a law degree!
Anybody can be a judge - even a judge on the supreme court. They are
all lawyers, but that is not a requirement. A lawyer has to pass a
bar exam.. but a judge does NOT.
Back to the point though.. law school is quite rigorous and what you
pointed out is entirely correct.
On 29 Aug 2005 18:48:07 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>There's no way Link just "went to law school". You need all kinds of
>pre law in undergrad school. He's just full of it as in all his bull
>stories.
>
>SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:39 pm |
| You didn't read my post very thoroughly.
I don't care if someone went to medical school for 40 years. You
can't teach common sense, nor can you teach someone to care. Having
knowlege, skills, and ability means nothing if one does not apply them
effectively.
Minarik is a good example of that. he certainly is extremely
experienced and knowlegeable. HOWEVER, he is also biased in his
thinking, and irrational at times - making him ineffective and even
dangerous.
On 29 Aug 2005 19:13:05 -0700, lindakendall3155@gmail.com wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>Ragnar wrote:
>
>I take exception to this. My brothers did 6 years at medical school
>(Melbourne University). Both then specialised, requiring at least
>another 6 years of study. In my experience, the vast majority of
>doctors do care and most doctors have a very well rounded knowledge of
>all things medical. Maybe it is because the standard of education
>required to do medicine in this country (Australia) is so high and that
>is why we (and Scottish doctors) are the best in the world. You cannot
>possibly have more knowledge than correctly trained doctors and I am
>astounded that you would even state this publicly!
>Linda
|
| |
|
|