|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > Wall Street Journal Nails Hanson of LasikFraud.com
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 |
Wall Street Journal Nails Hanson of LasikFraud.com
|
|
|
|
| serebel 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
|
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Hanson makes it in the Wall Street Journal, but he is not going to
> like what they say about him very much.
>
> http://online.wsj.com/public/articl....html?mod=blogs
>
> Can you imagine that Hanson would decline to comment about anything?
>
I can't believe that I'm about to type this half hearted defense of
Hanson but here goes.
I do not agree with just about anything hanson says, but I strongly
believe he has a right to voice his own opinion. I can see an
injunction being slammed against him when he states as fact something
that's not true. There is a line between opinion and libel but Hanson
does not know where it's drawn. Or he does and does not care. He sets
himself up.
SErebel
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| The case is classic Hanson.
The patient who claimed to be harmed came to an agreement and took
down all of the offending websites. Hanson republished copies of these
websites, ostensibly without the owner's permission. Even the original
owner had agreed that the websites were inaccurate and should not be
published.
Sure Hanson has a right to his opinion and that is protected, but he
does not have the right to publish someone ELSE's opinion without
their permission and after they had agreed that the information was
not fit for publication. You don't get First Amendment rights by
proxy.
The judge found that Hanson's rights were not in jeopardy, and quite
possibly he was violating the author's rights, thus the temporary
restraining order was issued. Hanson folded and removed the
republished websites before any hearing if the injunction should be
permanent.
On more than one occasion when the original author of a website saw
fit to remove offending, inaccurate, or misleading information, Hanson
republishes a copy on his website.
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 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| Absolutely, and this is where Hanson didn't just step over the line, he
pulled an "Eval Kneval" over it. If he would've stayed within the realm
of reality, he would not be in any legal trouble.
SErebel
| |
| serebel 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| Absolutely, and this is where Hanson didn't just step over the line, he
pulled an "Eval Kneval" over it. If he would've stayed within the realm
of reality, he would not be in any legal trouble.
SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| As I recall, the settlement reached with Hanson was more or less
extortion on his part, but that is not the issue that is relevant
here. I don't think Brent did get the money offered to him. From
what I can piece together, he and the brain damaged firefighter
attacked TLC together and there was a deal that the BDFF would get his
"expenses" paid, and whatever was left over would be Hanson's share of
the loot. I believe the amount was $15,000 which Hanson accepted, but
BDFF decided that his expenses exceeded $15,000, so Hanson got zero.
After that, Hanson got mad and put his websites back up to try and
extort more money - and now we fast forward to September 14th
2005..... My guess is that Hanson made the mistake of allowing
someone else to act on his behalf. Another complication in this
matter is that the surgeon involved in Hanson's case left TLC, yet
Hanson keeps going after TLC and not that surgeon. That is yet
another reason not ot go to a corporate Lasik Mill for surgery. The
surgeon wants the corporation to honor the deals, the corporation
wants the surgeon to honor the deals.
This is not unlike something which happens in computer stores. If you
notice, vendors of complete computer systems will sell hardware
accessories, but not software. The main reason for this is that
whenever something goes wrong with a computer, the hardware people
blame the software, and the software people blame the hardware. If a
store carried both the hardware AND the software, they would have
nobody else to blame.
On Thu, 15 Sep 2005 23:21:06 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>http://online.wsj.com/public/articl....html?mod=blogs
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| Hanson's primary flaw is that he keeps trying to blame LASIK for his
woes. It wasn't LASIK that was his problem, it was being jerked
around by the crooked company he had the surgery done at and the
unscrupulous people treating him. My understanding is that TLC has
since made improvements in their operation, however, LVI has taken up
where TLC left off and gone even further down the path of deception.
Even then, the LVI situation is not so simple. They have split their
company into at least 3 different regions and businesses including
Eyeglasses World and some pseudo "insurance" for eyes company. The
three Mucosa brothers each control a region. If memory serves, LVI's
gotten in hot water mostly in Nevada, California, Florida, and Ohio.
Supposedly one of the 3 divisions is much better than the other two.
On 15 Sep 2005 17:19:04 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>I can't believe that I'm about to type this half hearted defense of
>Hanson but here goes.
>I do not agree with just about anything hanson says, but I strongly
>believe he has a right to voice his own opinion. I can see an
>injunction being slammed against him when he states as fact something
>that's not true. There is a line between opinion and libel but Hanson
>does not know where it's drawn. Or he does and does not care. He sets
>himself up.
>
>SErebel
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| Evel Knieval (once billed as Opel Knoppel))
hehe..
This is off te topic, but Evel is a nutcase. He had a lifetime habit
of sticking his weenie into anything that moved, then when a writer
pointed that out, he attacked the author of the book with a baseball
bat nearly killing him. What a hero.
On 15 Sep 2005 19:41:42 -0700, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>Absolutely, and this is where Hanson didn't just step over the line, he
>pulled an "Eval Kneval" over it. If he would've stayed within the realm
>of reality, he would not be in any legal trouble.
>
>SErebel
|
| |
|
|