|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > September 2005 > Ragnar 'Logic' - Anyone who is clever MUST be Brent Hanson!
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 |
Ragnar 'Logic' - Anyone who is clever MUST be Brent Hanson!
|
|
|
| We all know that Ragnar and the even more feebleminded Serebel are not
clever fellows. Strange that Ragnar's logic could flow like this, and it's a
tremendous tribute to Hanson by the way:
1. People are posting on this newsgroup in ways that cannot be traced.
2. This is clever.
3. Hanson is clever.
4. Therefore, everyone who posts in a way that cannot be traced must be
Brent Hanson! Doesn't matter that the writing styles and posting content are
different, and that Hanson has never been reluctant to post under his own
name. It must be Hanson, it MUST be!
He's the only clever person on the planet!
Ragnar aka Christopher Roiland's mind is far to simple to arrive at any
other conclusion! So he arrives at one that is incorrect.
Thank GOD Laser Hemmorhoid surgeon is back - when he comments on a topic he
gets it RIGHT.
| |
| serebel 2005-09-24, 2:41 pm |
| Since "Sue" can't dazzle with logic, she tries to baffle with bullshit.
Especially, with unbelieveable "studies".
SErebel
| |
|
| Folks, SErebel is painfully ignorant. Studies in peer reviewed journals have
been provided on this site with links (so that people can read the published
study themselves) - they are not 'unbelievable studies'. Each journal wants
high quality publications to boost its 'impact score' (importance in the
field) and multiple reviewers in the field AND the journal editor evaluate
each study before it is published. Work must be deemed scientifically sound
to be accepted for publication. Once the work is presented in a journal, it
is seen by the entire scientific community and can be rebutted.
Why don't you go look for some peer-reviewed studies supporting your point
of view and post them? Good luck finding those!
Solid science was posted on this ridiculous forum. People should follow the
links and read for themselves. Order an entire article and read all of it.
Refractive surgery is bad for your eyes. Your eyes are screwed up, SErebel,
so you shouldn't be so surprised.
"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1127523103.530730.15510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Since "Sue" can't dazzle with logic, she tries to baffle with bullshit.
>
> Especially, with unbelieveable "studies".
>
> SErebel
>
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2005-09-25, 10:35 am |
| Yet again we have an anti-LASIK zealot telling someone else that they
are wrong about their own opinion about their own surgery outcome.
What hubris.
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 2005-09-25, 10:35 am |
| "Sue" Hanson... you are so full of it.
There are some points to be made here though:
things rarely get written, nor published in journals unless they
contain some negativity... what is incredible is how FEW negative
studies there are on LASIK. Keep in mind that LASIK is the most
performed surgical procedure of ANY surgical procedure. The lack of
reported problems speaks volumes.
Furthermore, when you do post your silly studies which you invariably
misinterpret intentionally, or by ignorance - those studies are
virtually always very old, obsolete studies done on obsolete equipment
no longer in use, and often from foreign countries.
give it a rest "Sue"
by the way... for those who haven't already figured it out. "Sue"
here is not a shortened form of SUSAN.. it is "sue" as in going to
court to try and extort money out of insurance companies and doctors.
Ironically, with Hanson's established record, if there ever was a
trial with merit that involved Hanson, any award would be thrown out
if anybody pointed out Hanson's history.
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 16:40:09 -0400, "Sue" <SuePreston@aol.com> wrote:
>Folks, SErebel is painfully ignorant. Studies in peer reviewed journals have
>been provided on this site with links (so that people can read the published
>study themselves) - they are not 'unbelievable studies'. Each journal wants
>high quality publications to boost its 'impact score' (importance in the
>field) and multiple reviewers in the field AND the journal editor evaluate
>each study before it is published. Work must be deemed scientifically sound
>to be accepted for publication. Once the work is presented in a journal, it
>is seen by the entire scientific community and can be rebutted.
>
>Why don't you go look for some peer-reviewed studies supporting your point
>of view and post them? Good luck finding those!
>
>Solid science was posted on this ridiculous forum. People should follow the
>links and read for themselves. Order an entire article and read all of it.
>Refractive surgery is bad for your eyes. Your eyes are screwed up, SErebel,
>so you shouldn't be so surprised.
>
>
>"serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:1127523103.530730.15510@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
| |
| Ragnar 2005-09-25, 10:35 am |
| Sue exhiibits the height of hubris with HIS pure piffle.
On Sat, 24 Sep 2005 21:20:01 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>Yet again we have an anti-LASIK zealot telling someone else that they
>are wrong about their own opinion about their own surgery outcome.
>What hubris.
>
>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.
|
| |
|
|