|
Home > Archive > Lasik Eyes Surgery > February 2006 > Glenn Hagele Is Stalking Me!!
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 |
Glenn Hagele Is Stalking Me!!
|
|
|
| Glenn Hagele is investigating me on a personal level and publishing his
supposed "findings" on the internet. I think that Hagele now needs to
accept his own label of cyberstalker.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2006-02-25, 9:53 pm |
| Have you considered filing an application for a restraining order
against Hagele?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:53 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2006 13:28:19 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Glenn Hagele is investigating me on a personal level and publishing his
>supposed "findings" on the internet. I think that Hagele now needs to
>accept his own label of cyberstalker.
I pointed out public content on the website you created, Keller. Is
reading your website now "stalking"? Gosh, I read Keller's post in
this newsgroup. Keller must think that is stalking too.
Just how childish can you get, Keller?
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 2006-02-25, 9:53 pm |
| Speaking of nuts... that witch flew from California to Florida in a
sad and pathetic failed attempt to trick me. If that doesn't count
as stalking, I don't know what does. That witch has also posted
messages in THIS newsgroup using MY alias. She claims that was a
"joke". I can just imagine if Hitler lived. He would be sitting
there at the Nuremburg trials saying "Oy Vey! Can't you people take a
joke? "
Today's mystery is who sandy@savvysneaks.com is. In a message from
Sandy today, she claims she has nothing to do with
www.lasikdisaster.com That is reminiscent of the nazis on trial
saying "we knew nothing of death camps..." 100% pure blatant denial
of obvious facts.
On Wed, 22 Feb 2006 23:25:18 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>On 22 Feb 2006 13:28:19 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
>I pointed out public content on the website you created, Keller. Is
>reading your website now "stalking"? Gosh, I read Keller's post in
>this newsgroup. Keller must think that is stalking too.
>
>Just how childish can you get, Keller?
>
>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.
| |
|
| Hagele, you indicated that you had information about a divorce that you
could publish, business deals, etc. To what are you referring? I
have not posted any such things.
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2006-02-25, 9:53 pm |
| It was really STOOPID for Hagele to make a threat to publish a copy of
your so-called "divorce", for the following reason:
1) You don't have a divorce on your record (to my knowledge).
2) Hagele DOES have a divorce on his own record.
3) Probably a few of his "certified" surgeons do have divorces on their
records.
Hagele made it clear he thinks it is perfectly acceptable to publish
copies of divorce records. Somehow, I think Hagele is going to end up
banging his head on the wall over this.
What do you think?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:53 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2006 15:41:43 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Hagele, you indicated that you had information about a divorce that you
>could publish, business deals, etc. To what are you referring? I
>have not posted any such things.
Here is the exchange:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>Keller:
> After all, if that is how we are to read "court documents", you are a
>tax evader. There is at least one court document accusing you of such,
>isn't there?
Hagele:
Yes, and this issue was finally adjudicated through internal IRS
processes in my favor, as was previously stated.
<snip>
>Keller:
>Not to mention what your ex-wife probably complained
>about in her "court documents".
Hagele:
Is it time for me to publish your divorce documents Keller? Perhaps we
should all see what your ex-neighbor has to say about you too. And
then there are those business dealings that went south. Perhaps this
errata is important to some, but it has nothing to do with refractive
surgery issues, now does it?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
So Keller, it was you who raised the idea of publishing ex-spouse
statements from court documents, not me. I did not say that I would
publish such documents, but I did show that such information has
nothing to do with refractive surgery issues and at the same time
pointed out that people who are standing on thin ice should not wear
electric socks.
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.
| |
|
| Yes, and it was also STOOPID of him to mention "business deals gone
south" because I haven't had any and he is implicating otherwise.
I think that Hagele's determination to make others look bad is going to
make CR$QA go south.
| |
|
| Sorry to disappoint you, Christopher, but I have never been further
East than Chicago, and to the South, never further than Texas and
Oklahoma.
| |
|
| I didn't say anything about publishing it, nor did I threaten to. I
haven't seen any court documents referring to you, nor any court
document references, search results, etc. because I have no interest
in you or your personal life and haven't done any research whatsoever
on you.
| |
|
|
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2006 17:02:32 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I didn't say anything about publishing it, nor did I threaten to.
Neither did I.
>I
>haven't seen any court documents referring to you, nor any court
>document references, search results, etc. because I have no interest
>in you or your personal life
If you had no interest, then why did you bring up the issue of what
may have been said by an ex-spouse? For that matter, why bring up a
decade old satisfied tax lien? Neither has anything to do with
alt.lasik-eyes.
>and haven't done any research whatsoever
>on you.
Unfortunately, I am in the unenviable position of being required to do
research on several individuals, including Sandy Keller.
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.
| |
|
| Doesn't sound like any amount of research is going to help you, Glenn. You
have been attacking
damaged patients, especially Hanson and Keller, for years. The problem you
currently face is that the things
they are saying about you are true, and supportable...and the claims that
you are making about them
are false and UNSUPPORTABLE. Do you SEE what kind of trouble this could lead
to?
And now you've gone and ADMITTED that you are a cybr-stalker! Sandy, get
that restraining order
ASAP!
"Glenn - USAEyes.org" <glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote in message
news:rj8qv1h7iinbanth2vqmggm3t3m6370183@4ax.com...
> On 22 Feb 2006 17:02:32 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
> Neither did I.
>
>
> If you had no interest, then why did you bring up the issue of what
> may have been said by an ex-spouse? For that matter, why bring up a
> decade old satisfied tax lien? Neither has anything to do with
> alt.lasik-eyes.
>
>
> Unfortunately, I am in the unenviable position of being required to do
> research on several individuals, including Sandy Keller.
>
> 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.
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| What's wrong "Wendy", afraid you may have to fess up to all the
aliases you have been using.
That's right "Wendy", stand up for Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com. He
is exactly the type of character with which you would associate.
Not only are my statements about Hanson true, but I have provided
certified court documents to affirm their truth.
So, what kind of trouble do you expect this to lead to "Wendy"?
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.
| |
|
|
>
>
>
> So Keller, it was you who raised the idea of publishing ex-spouse
> statements from court documents, not me. I did not say that I would
> publish such documents, but I did show that such information has
> nothing to do with refractive surgery issues and at the same time
> pointed out that people who are standing on thin ice should not wear
> electric socks.
No, Hagele, I did not raise the idea of publishing anything. What I
was talking about is how you seem to think that everyone here is so
stupid as to think that something that appears on any kind of "court
document" is the truth and that people (Brent Hanson, for instance) are
to be judged based on what you choose to reprint from "court
documents". You attempted to make an "official complaint" against
Mr. Berschadsky look like something so terrible on his record, until
it's uncovered that YOU are the one who filed this "official
complaint".
What I was saying was that I don't think you would say that your
ex-wife painted a rosy picture of you in the court documents filed
during your divorce, but just because it appears in a "court document"
doesn't make it the truth.
Just about anything can appear in "court documents".
I did not say anything about publishing your divorce records here or
anywhere else.. Got it????
>
> 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.
| |
|
| Oh, I published information about a divorce and business deals gone
south, did I? Gosh, I don't recall that. Please provide a link and
refresh my failing memory.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| They have to go "north" before they can go south.
On 22 Feb 2006 16:59:05 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Yes, and it was also STOOPID of him to mention "business deals gone
>south" because I haven't had any and he is implicating otherwise.
>
>I think that Hagele's determination to make others look bad is going to
>make CR$QA go south.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| You lie so much it is difficult to sort out your lies.. however... you
have posted that you visit your relatives in Florida. I am skeptical
about that because I doubt any relatives would want you around.
On 22 Feb 2006 17:00:08 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Sorry to disappoint you, Christopher, but I have never been further
>East than Chicago, and to the South, never further than Texas and
>Oklahoma.
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2006 22:51:32 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Oh, I published information about a divorce and business deals gone
>south, did I? Gosh, I don't recall that. Please provide a link and
>refresh my failing memory.
You sure do have a failing memory. Check out this message from
yesterday:
1140641517.930616.244200@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com
In it, Sandy says:
I have nothing to do with http://www.lasikdisaster.com and have no way
to "pull ads" because I have no access to be able to change anything
on
the site.
What a liar!
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Jeeze Keller. You deny the content of your own statements. Do you now
deny your own quote?
The court documents at
http://glennhagele.com/brenthanson/..._Jail_Order.pdf
that are certified by the court's clerk show clearly that Brent Hanson
of LasikFraud.com (for instance) has been sentenced to 540 days in a
Texas jail for three counts of contempt, plus fined a total of $1,500.
Do you deny that this is the truth? Do you deny the existence of these
documents? Do you deny their authenticity? Have you verified the
documents to the court records, or are you just going to take Brent
Hanson's word for it? Brent Hanson, who has been found in contempt of
court for lying. Brent Hanson who has been ordered to stay 500 feet
away from a Dallas doctor, the doctor's family, office, home, and even
his lawyers because Brent Hanson has made credible physical threats
against the doctor. Brent Hanson who uses e-gold accounts and
off-shore resources in an (failed) attempt to hide his ownership of
websites that blatantly defame people.
Go ahead Keller. Defend Hanson. Say how you don't know if the
documents are genuine because you don't have time to do the research.
The content of my complaint to the New York State Bar Association
about attorney Ariel Berschadsky is factually accurate, substantiated,
and public. Whether or not the Bar found his malfeasance justified
their action or if action was within their purview does not change the
fact that Berschadsky republished copyrighted articles on his
LasikInfoCenter.net website without the permission of the article's
owners.
Go ahead Keller. Defend Berschadsky. Say how you "don't know" if
Berschadsky had permission to republish the articles because you
"don't have time" to do the research.
Of course you try to absolve yourself of all responsibility for paid
Lasik advertisements on LasikDisaster.com, the website you created,
but don't bother to say that Paula Cofer (Broken Eyes, and several
other aliases) is now responsible for what is on the LasikDisaster.com
website.
Go ahead Keller. Defend Cofer. Say how you "don't make a penny" off of
the website you created. Tell us how it is soooooooo appropriate for
Cofer to condemn refractive surgery on one hand while putting money in
her pocket from the same people with the other. Oh yes, you don't have
time to bother with that either.
And none of this has anything to do with what an ex-spouse may or may
not have said 15 years ago in court documents, which is the issue YOU
raised, Keller. Not me. I simply responded that someone in your
tenuous position should really consider the potential consequences of
making such idiotic statements.
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 22 Feb 2006 22:51:32 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Oh, I published information about a divorce and business deals gone
>south, did I? Gosh, I don't recall that. Please provide a link and
>refresh my failing memory.
I know it is tough for you when you get all in a titter, but try to
keep straight who said what.
You brought up the issue of what an ex-spouse may or may not have said
Keller. That was not me. I responded by pointing out that someone with
many people who have less than flattering opinions about you in
several circumstances should really consider the potential
consequences of making such an idiotic statement.
And please, Keller, explain how a satisfied tax lien from 1986 has
anything to do with refractive surgery issues. It seems so important
to you that you must include it in your diatribe, so tell us how that
is relevant to Lasik.
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.
| |
|
| What does that have to do with divorce and business deals gone south,
Hagele?? Are you on drugs or something????
| |
| Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| He's trying to bully people into not thinking that he's a bully.
I believe that Glenn Hagele has just plain gone "nuts" from criticism.
I'm sure he's used to getting his way by bullying people around. Now
that he's seen he can't get his way, he seems to have lost him mind and
can't think straight.
| |
|
| I will not defend anyone but myself against your lies, Hagele.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 23 Feb 2006 12:23:26 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I will not defend anyone but myself...
I have not lied about you, Hanson, Berschadsky, or anyone else in this
newsgroup.
> against your lies, Hagele.
Then why do you keep defending Hanson? Why do you defend Ariel
Berschadsky? Are you them too?
Oh, now we can hear all about how you never defended Hanson or
Berschadsky and your insipid demands to show where you defended Hanson
or Berschadsky. Jeeze Keller, you deny your own words about yourself.
I fully expect you to deny your own words about others.
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 23 Feb 2006 11:09:48 -0800, "Brent Hanson - LASIKFRAUD.com"
<administrator@lasikcourt.com> wrote:
>He's trying to bully people into not thinking that he's a bully.
>
>I believe that Glenn Hagele has just plain gone "nuts" from criticism.
>I'm sure he's used to getting his way by bullying people around. Now
>that he's seen he can't get his way, he seems to have lost him mind and
>can't think straight.
I don't know how discussing relevant facts would be considered
"bullying" by a reasonable person. I can see how it ma appear so since
I am often required to repeat the same facts over and over and over to
the constant denials of those affected, such as how Brent Hanson of
LasikFraud.com has been sentenced to 540 days in a Texas jail for
contempt against Dr. Boothe.
Let's hear you deny that again, Hanson. Deny the court's order.
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| And this.. coming from a woman who is divorced herself, and sells
white sneakers with glitter glued onto them for trailer park weddings.
Let's see if RT will scold Sandy for dragging Glenn's personal life
into the newsgroup.
Divorce... sadly, divorce is normal these days. People who have never
been divorced are the unusual ones. I can think of several people who
should get a divorce who haven't. Such as Mr. Keller.
On 23 Feb 2006 10:27:47 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>What does that have to do with divorce and business deals gone south,
>Hagele?? Are you on drugs or something????
| |
|
| It is impossible to respond any further to you, Hagele, because you are
making no sense. If you're high, come back when it wears off and show
me where I published information about being divorced and about
business deals going south.
| |
|
| Keller:
Hagele:[vbcol=seagreen]
>Neither did I.
Keller:
Yes, you did. See below.
[vbcol=seagreen]
Is that or is that not saying something about publishing them or
threatening to? At the very least, you are saying something about
publishing them, and in fact, you seem to be threatening to.
I have not commented on anything having to do with court documents
regarding Brent Hanson, other than to say that you want people to
believe that anything that is in an "official court document" should be
considered TRUTH. I will not attempt to come to anyone's defense other
than my own and I have not defended anyone, including Brent Hanson.
I pointed out to you that you would probably not call everything that
your ex-wife filed in your divorce case as "TRUTH" in an effort to try
to get you to admit that not everything in an "official court document"
is the TRUTH, as you would try to have people believe with regard to
Brent Hanson. I guess that if you cannot admit to that, it would
serve you right if someone does publish those documents here, and we
can then remind you that everything in an "official court document" is
to be regarded as TRUTH, and that we should judge you based on
everything included in those "official court documents" that your
ex-wife filed.
| |
|
| I was merely pointing out to you that you were accused of tax evasion
in OFFICIAL documents and that you are the one who wants everyone to
think that anything filed in any file anywhere must be true because
it's OFFICIAL!
Wow! I'll bet you open every one of those OFFICIAL Prize Winner
Notifications from Publisher's Clearing House and spend hours licking
all of the little magazine stickers and pasting them in the correct
places so that you can claim your OFFICIAL prizes, because, hey!, it's
OFFICIAL!!!!
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 23 Feb 2006 18:04:39 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Keller:
>
>Hagele:
>
>Keller:
>Yes, you did. See below.
>
>
>Is that or is that not saying something about publishing them or
>threatening to? At the very least, you are saying something about
>publishing them, and in fact, you seem to be threatening to.
My statement is both hypothetical, metaphoric, and a direct response
to your implied threat, Keller. I would think that reasonable people
could see this. The point I made, and have had to make over and over
and over again because some people don't seem to be able to see beyond
their own conjured world, is that someone with a history such as
Keller's should not be bringing up issues like what an ex-spouse may
have said in court documents.
>I have not commented on anything having to do with court documents
>regarding Brent Hanson, other than to say
"Other than to say...", and say, and say, and say.
>that you want people to
>believe that anything that is in an "official court document" should be
>considered TRUTH.
The FINAL determination of the court, as shown in the documents I have
published at my website, certified by the court's clerk, is that Brent
Hanson was found in contempt, fined a total of $1,500, and sentenced
to a total of 540 days in jail.
How friggin official does it need to be for you Keller?
>I will not attempt to come to anyone's defense other
>than my own and I have not defended anyone, including Brent Hanson.
Here is just a part of what you said before, Keller:
Sorry Keller. You can't accuse me of misrepresenting the facts about
Hanson's defamation and contempt without defending Hanson. They are
one and the same.
Furthermore, I have made the documents that prove Hanson's malfeasance
- as finally determined by the Texas court - available on my website
for some time. They are available at the court clerk's office. If you
took the time to actually read them, you would know what proof they
contain. You would know that I have not misrepresented any of Hanson's
malfeasance against Dr. Boothe.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>I pointed out to you that you would probably not call everything that
>your ex-wife filed in your divorce case as "TRUTH" in an effort to try
>to get you to admit that not everything in an "official court document"
>is the TRUTH, as you would try to have people believe with regard to
>Brent Hanson.
The FINAL determination of the court is that Brent Hanson was found to
be a danger to Dr. Boothe and others, found to be in contempt of the
court's orders, fined a total of $1,500, and sentenced to a total of
540 days in jail. So tell us what, according to Keller, about these
facts should not be considered TRUTH?
The final determination of the court, agreed to by Brent Hanson
himself, does not appear to be enough truth for Keller. Oh wait.
Perhaps it is too much truth for Keller to handle.
Keller, your "buddy" Hanson is a proven liar, defamer, and a danger to
Dr. Boothe and those around him. Why can't you just accept this?
This was not just "anyone" accusing Hanson of bad things. This was Dr.
Boothe providing more than enough evidence to an independent court
that Hanson had actually done these things, had defamed Dr. Boothe,
had lied, had defied the court's order and HANSON HIMSELF agreed to
these facts with his own signature.
So we have Keller here suggesting that the court's order of restraint
and finding of contempt against Brent Hanson is just a case of "anyone
can sue someone and accuse them of extortion and all kinds of bad
things" when in fact the court AND HANSON agreed that Hanson acted
inappropriately.
> I guess that if you cannot admit to that, it would
>serve you right if someone does publish those documents here, and we
>can then remind you that everything in an "official court document" is
>to be regarded as TRUTH, and that we should judge you based on
>everything included in those "official court documents" that your
>ex-wife filed.
Tell us Keller, how does the final determination of the Texas court
have anything to do with what anyone else may have alleged anywhere
else? How does the final determination of the court have anything to
do with what may or may not be in someone else's divorce records?
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| So Keller's response to questioning her motives in defending Ariel
Berschadsky of LasikInfoCenter.net and Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com
is to accuse me of being "high".
Nice response, Keller.
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Keller, the final determination of the Texas court was that your
"buddy" Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com is a liar, defamer, and
contemptuous of the court. That is not an accusation. That is what the
court determined based upon evidence presented and HANSON'S OWN
ADMISSIONS TO THE COURT. The court met that determination and
admission with a sentence of $1,500 of fines and 540 days in jail.
If you've got a problem with that being "official", then take it up
with the Texas court.
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 wrote:
> So Keller's response to questioning her motives in defending Ariel
> Berschadsky of LasikInfoCenter.net and Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com
> is to accuse me of being "high".
>
> Nice response, Keller.
>
> 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.
I did NOT defend them so how can you question my motives in defending
them?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 23 Feb 2006 23:48:27 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
>
>I did NOT defend them so how can you question my motives in defending
>them?
More of Keller's ever-present and all-permeating denial.
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.
| |
|
| Actually, Christopher, I am not divorced. I have been married for over
21 years. Mr. Keller is just fine, thank you. We use no glitter on
the shoes, but since you seem so hung up on them, we'd be happy to make
you a pair sometime and find some glitter for yours. I still haven't
been to Florida, but maybe I could deliver your shoes to you---meet you
at the Macaroni Grill??
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Impossible to respond to him further.. but you managed to do it 7 more
times after this post earlier today.
On 23 Feb 2006 17:32:46 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>It is impossible to respond any further to you, Hagele, because you are
>making no sense. If you're high, come back when it wears off and show
>me where I published information about being divorced and about
>business deals going south.
| |
| Lasik Complications 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Sandy,
I do not understand why this "Mr. Haegle" has to investigate you. As
you have your own business, I do not believe you are applying for the
Police Dept.,Sheriff's Dept., CIA, or FBI. Talking to and
investigating ex-neighbors and looking up all your past history with
whatever is true or not is not relevant to Haegle's job.
Haegle better pray that nothing happens to you, a hit and run,
burglarization of your home or business, an assault. The Police
Department would take a very high interest in Haegle for all this
research and everything he has written in this forum. Even the Police
Department does not investigate their applicants for past divorces or
marriages here. Haegle does not have to live on your same street for
something to happen to you. As mean as he can get on this web site all
he has to do is hire someone to harm you.
As for your previous web site whether you got paid or not, what
relevancy does that have? It just shows that the companies that are
promoting lasik are not smart enough to go check where the service
provider is placing the ad. I would not want to place an ad next to a
web site that talks against lasik, if I were promoting lasik. If I
were selling tires, I would surely not place my ad next to another ad
that talked about and showed all the defects in the tires I was
selling. Sandy, I give you a lot of credit. I would not answer this
man. Why does he demand to know information from you? If he is
responsible for investigating you, let him do it and strange things do
happen in this world and it just may come back to bite him! This man
is not only stalking you, he is completely obsessed with you. Why this
tremendous obsession with you? I would make sure that I make several
copies of all his written comments on this forum against you and give
to several people to provide to the Police Department in case anything
happens to you or a member of your family. He is definitely an
obssessed stalker with you!
Lasik Complications
| |
|
| I have not commented on the court documents involving Brent Hanson,
other than to state a few times that just because something appears on
an "OFFICIAL COURT DOCUMENT" doesn't mean that it is TRUTH. I have
not offered my opinion one way or the other with regard to the
documents involving Brent Hanson and I will not.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 24 Feb 2006 11:53:30 -0800, "Lasik Complications"
<galin99do@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sandy,
>I do not understand why this "Mr. Haegle" has to investigate you.
Investigation is normal - just about required - before litigation.
That is why she, and others, have been investigated.
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.
| |
|
| My 3 binders full of printed Hagele posts are going to be put to good
use. It should be up to 4 binders within the next couple of weeks.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 24 Feb 2006 13:44:56 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>My 3 binders full of printed Hagele posts are going to be put to good
>use. It should be up to 4 binders within the next couple of weeks.
How nice. You could make a little scrap book.
8^)
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Come to Florida again with those 4 binders so I can shove them up your
XXX. And this time when you come to Florida, don't get drunk and
break your ankle the way you did last time you boozy hell hound.
Does that count as being mean?
On 24 Feb 2006 13:44:56 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>My 3 binders full of printed Hagele posts are going to be put to good
>use. It should be up to 4 binders within the next couple of weeks.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| The thing about statements like that, Ragnar, is that whatever point
you are trying to make is going to be lost in the vulgarity. Plus, you
miss the opportunity to be creative with double entendre or euphemism.
I'm sure you could come up with several different ways to say
effectively the same thing without using a vulgar term.
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| You are the last person who should be using the word "TRUTH"
On 24 Feb 2006 12:51:28 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I have not commented on the court documents involving Brent Hanson,
>other than to state a few times that just because something appears on
>an "OFFICIAL COURT DOCUMENT" doesn't mean that it is TRUTH. I have
>not offered my opinion one way or the other with regard to the
>documents involving Brent Hanson and I will not.
| |
| Lasik Complications 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
|
No it counts as being crude, vicious, vulgar, and there are absolutely
no words to describe how a person can actually behave the way you do.
However, here in Texas your first statement could very easily be called
a "terroristic threat" I wonder what the law in Florida considers it?
Lasik Complications
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Thanks for that post L.C. Maybe when even an anti-lasik person such
as yourself tells Sandy to put a cork in it.. she might listen. I
doubt it though.
It was good of you to try though.
Remember that you are dealing with some kook who went to court (and
lost) with 3 boxes of documents weight 25 pounds. I don't think there
were that many documents in Ollie North's Iran Contra hearings.
On 24 Feb 2006 11:53:30 -0800, "Lasik Complications"
<galin99do@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Sandy,
>I do not understand why this "Mr. Haegle" has to investigate you. As
>you have your own business, I do not believe you are applying for the
>Police Dept.,Sheriff's Dept., CIA, or FBI. Talking to and
>investigating ex-neighbors and looking up all your past history with
>whatever is true or not is not relevant to Haegle's job.
>Haegle better pray that nothing happens to you, a hit and run,
>burglarization of your home or business, an assault. The Police
>Department would take a very high interest in Haegle for all this
>research and everything he has written in this forum. Even the Police
>Department does not investigate their applicants for past divorces or
>marriages here. Haegle does not have to live on your same street for
>something to happen to you. As mean as he can get on this web site all
>he has to do is hire someone to harm you.
>As for your previous web site whether you got paid or not, what
>relevancy does that have? It just shows that the companies that are
>promoting lasik are not smart enough to go check where the service
>provider is placing the ad. I would not want to place an ad next to a
>web site that talks against lasik, if I were promoting lasik. If I
>were selling tires, I would surely not place my ad next to another ad
>that talked about and showed all the defects in the tires I was
>selling. Sandy, I give you a lot of credit. I would not answer this
>man. Why does he demand to know information from you? If he is
>responsible for investigating you, let him do it and strange things do
>happen in this world and it just may come back to bite him! This man
>is not only stalking you, he is completely obsessed with you. Why this
>tremendous obsession with you? I would make sure that I make several
>copies of all his written comments on this forum against you and give
>to several people to provide to the Police Department in case anything
>happens to you or a member of your family. He is definitely an
>obssessed stalker with you!
>Lasik Complications
| |
| Lasik Complications 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| Please, do not thank me. I was not trying to tell her to put a cork in
it. The vulgarity, ugliness, crudeness and everything terrible in this
forum is beyond belief. I was just trying to tell her that you are all
not worth answering to. As a matter of fact, I will not waste my time
answering you again. What does it gain? Nothing! I see nothing where
supposedly this forum was to try and help people with lasik questions
and possible lasik complications. My suggestion to her is to
completely ignore you, I know you won't go away, but you will have to
go find someone else to pick on. Even with my eyes dry and burning, I
could not be as mean as you are. You must be a totally unhappy
individual that cannot stand to see someone else have a different
opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But for some
reason, some people cannot respect that.
Lasik Complications
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| There are no non-vulgar words to describe Keller.
Will Rogers once said "I never met a man I didn't like" Well... Will
never met Keller.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 00:43:44 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>The thing about statements like that, Ragnar, is that whatever point
>you are trying to make is going to be lost in the vulgarity. Plus, you
>miss the opportunity to be creative with double entendre or euphemism.
>I'm sure you could come up with several different ways to say
>effectively the same thing without using a vulgar term.
>
>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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| In Texas they would BBQ her in the electric chair.
That's the thanks I get for thinking of a place to put those binders
so they wouldn't get lost.
On 24 Feb 2006 16:47:20 -0800, "Lasik Complications"
<galin99do@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>No it counts as being crude, vicious, vulgar, and there are absolutely
>no words to describe how a person can actually behave the way you do.
>However, here in Texas your first statement could very easily be called
>a "terroristic threat" I wonder what the law in Florida considers it?
>Lasik Complications
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On 24 Feb 2006 12:51:28 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I have not commented on the court documents involving Brent Hanson,
You actually have, Keller.
>other than to state a few times that just because something appears on
>an "OFFICIAL COURT DOCUMENT" doesn't mean that it is TRUTH.
We are not just talking about any court document, Keller. I have
presented the final determination of the Texas court, to which Brent
Hanson of LasikFraud.com agreed with his signature. The plaintiff
William Boothe, MD, the defendant Brent Hanson, and the court all
agreed to the TRUTH of the situation.
Why is it that you can't?
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 2006-02-25, 9:54 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 01:02:03 GMT, Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>There are no non-vulgar words to describe Keller.
>Will Rogers once said "I never met a man I didn't like" Well... Will
>never met Keller.
You see. You CAN insult without being vulgar. That may be a rather
dubious achievement, but at least we don't get the vulgarity.
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 wrote:
> On 24 Feb 2006 12:51:28 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>
>
> You actually have, Keller.
>
>
> We are not just talking about any court document, Keller. I have
> presented the final determination of the Texas court, to which Brent
> Hanson of LasikFraud.com agreed with his signature. The plaintiff
> William Boothe, MD, the defendant Brent Hanson, and the court all
> agreed to the TRUTH of the situation.
>
> Why is it that you can't?
>
> 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.
In my comments regarding "official court documents" and "truth", I have
not once specifically addressed the situation you refer to. I am
speaking in general terms, and you go on and on and on about this one
specific case. Why, Hagele?
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb 2006 19:08:07 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>In my comments regarding "official court documents" and "truth", I have
>not once specifically addressed the situation you refer to. I am
>speaking in general terms, and you go on and on and on about this one
>specific case. Why, Hagele?
Because it is the case to which you (and I) have referred. Tell me,
what other case of contempt, lies, threats, fines, and incarceration
adjudicated in Collin county Texas has been discussed in this
newsgroup? I can only come up with William Boothe, MD v. Brent Hanson.
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.
| |
|
|
Lasik Complications wrote:
> Sandy,
> I do not understand why this "Mr. Haegle" has to investigate you. As
> you have your own business, I do not believe you are applying for the
> Police Dept.,Sheriff's Dept., CIA, or FBI. Talking to and
> investigating ex-neighbors and looking up all your past history with
> whatever is true or not is not relevant to Haegle's job.
> Haegle better pray that nothing happens to you, a hit and run,
> burglarization of your home or business, an assault. The Police
> Department would take a very high interest in Haegle for all this
> research and everything he has written in this forum. Even the Police
> Department does not investigate their applicants for past divorces or
> marriages here. Haegle does not have to live on your same street for
> something to happen to you. As mean as he can get on this web site all
> he has to do is hire someone to harm you.
> As for your previous web site whether you got paid or not, what
> relevancy does that have? It just shows that the companies that are
> promoting lasik are not smart enough to go check where the service
> provider is placing the ad. I would not want to place an ad next to a
> web site that talks against lasik, if I were promoting lasik. If I
> were selling tires, I would surely not place my ad next to another ad
> that talked about and showed all the defects in the tires I was
> selling. Sandy, I give you a lot of credit. I would not answer this
> man. Why does he demand to know information from you? If he is
> responsible for investigating you, let him do it and strange things do
> happen in this world and it just may come back to bite him! This man
> is not only stalking you, he is completely obsessed with you. Why this
> tremendous obsession with you? I would make sure that I make several
> copies of all his written comments on this forum against you and give
> to several people to provide to the Police Department in case anything
> happens to you or a member of your family. He is definitely an
> obssessed stalker with you!
> Lasik Complications
LC, what is interesting is that Hagele is doing the investigating
himself. Usually that is handled for you if there is litigation
involved. He either has a lazy, cheap attorney or he's just trying to
intimidate me. Nothing he could possibly dig up on me (nothing which
is actual fact and not some made up crap like the "business deals gone
south" lie of his) would embarrass me. What's next Glenn? Gonna
obtain my medical records and tell everyone how long I was in labor for
each baby? Post my grades from high school?
What is so disgusting is that Glenn thinks Brent is terrible for
discovering personal things about him and posting them, and then Glenn
turns around and does the same to me. RT scolds me for simply
commenting on what Brent found, but doesn't say a word when Glenn posts
what he thinks he's found out about me.
Glenn thinks he's being coy by asking if it's now time to post
information about my divorce, rather than just coming out and posting
it. He accomplished what he set out to do, but attempted to look
innocent doing so. Then he tries to cover up what he has done by
stating that he was only re-posting information I've already posted,
which is an outright lie.
He posts a question about my "business deals gone south" which implies
that I've had business deals that went south, seemingly without coming
right out and making a bold statement. The net effect is just what he
wanted. He has people thinking that he's found something about bad
business deals I've made and justifies what he is doing with his
statement that he's only re-posting what I've already posted. Outright
lie again.
I really don't think a judge or jury would think his little question
game is very funny. I think they would see it just as being just as
intentional as it is. Pre-meditated and intentional.
| |
|
| I didn't mention "a case of contempt, lies, threats, fines and
incarceration", did I? There you go again. I was speaking in
generalities and you cannot seem to see past this one particular case.
| |
| serebel 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| You're as bad as Link when it comes to posting these baby whines, Sandy.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| >LC, what is interesting is that Hagele is doing the investigating
>himself. Usually that is handled for you if there is litigation
>involved.
Wrong again, Keller. Investigators in five states have been doing the
bulk of the work, but I do what I can.
> He either has a lazy, cheap attorney or he's just trying to
>intimidate me.
My attorneys are quite energetic, outrageously over-priced (but worth
every cent), and "as if" Keller could be intimidated with mere words
in a newsgroup. I suspect much more would be required.
> Nothing he could possibly dig up on me (nothing which
>is actual fact and not some made up crap like the "business deals gone
>south" lie of his) would embarrass me.
Perhaps you would not be embarrassed. Stranger things have happened.
Hanson does not seem to be embarrassed by being sentenced to jail.
Heck, he won't even acknowledge it.
>What's next Glenn? Gonna
>obtain my medical records and tell everyone how long I was in labor for
>each baby? Post my grades from high school?
As far as I know, these things have nothing to do with refractive
surgery.
>What is so disgusting is that Glenn thinks Brent is terrible for
>discovering personal things about him and posting them,
And you don't, Keller? You don't think it is disgusting to publish
personal things about someone that have nothing to do with the issue
at hand? You sure got your panties in a bunch when I pointed out that
it could happen to you, too.
>and then Glenn
>turns around and does the same to me.
Not true, Keller, but I did respond to your implied threat regarding
what my ex may or may not have said a decade and a half ago. I
responded by pointing out that if the shoe is on the other foot you
probably would not like it. Your tirade of late would indicate I was
right. It seems I touched a nerve by showing the tables can be turned
on you.
>RT scolds me for simply
>commenting on what Brent found, but doesn't say a word when Glenn posts
>what he thinks he's found out about me.
Keller, Hanson's personal attack on me was/is unwarranted, unprovoked,
and has nothing to do with refractive surgery.
I responded to your direct statement about me. Apparently Keller
cannot see the difference between publicizing irrelevant old history
and suggesting that people who live in glass houses should not throw
stones.
>Glenn thinks he's being coy by asking if it's now time to post
>information about my divorce, rather than just coming out and posting
>it.
There is no purpose in posting such information, as far as I can tell.
Such information has nothing to do with refractive surgery. That is
exactly the point I was making, Keller. A point that you seem adamant
to refuse to see. I suppose you will blame that on Lasik too.
You talk about what my ex may or may not have said 15 years ago, I
point out that you (and probably everyone for that matter) have a few
people who have less than flattering things to say about you about
issues that have nothing to do with refractive surgery. The shoe was
simply pointed at the other foot. You don't seem to be able to deal
with being put in the same situation as you suggest putting me into.
Brent Hanson of LasiFraud.com being found by a Texas judge to be a
danger to a refractive surgeon (who had nothing to do with Hanson's
own surgery), publishing anti-Lasik anti-doctor websites against court
orders, trying to hide his ownership of those websites, and defying a
court order to not defame a refractive surgeon actually has something
to do with this newsgroup.
The suggestion of having YOUR personal dirty laundry aired in public
seems to have caught your attention, but you don't seem to think it
inappropriate to suggest that mine should be aired. That's being a
hypocrite, Keller.
>He accomplished what he set out to do, but attempted to look
>innocent doing so.
Keller clearly does not have the foggiest idea what I set out to do.
>Then he tries to cover up what he has done by
>stating that he was only re-posting information I've already posted,
>which is an outright lie.
I have not stated that you have posted anything about your bad
business dealings or anything like that. As far as I know you have
not. I have not posted any such information so I could not possibly
be "re-posting" such information either originally posted by you or by
me. Heaven knows you do have an imagination - twisted though it may
be.
>He posts a question about my "business deals gone south" which implies
>that I've had business deals that went south, seemingly without coming
>right out and making a bold statement.
Yes Keller, I asked what you would think of someone posting details of
your business deals that have gone south and negative things others
have said about you in direct response to your suggestion that
something said by my ex-wife during a divorce 15 years ago should be
published. The point, which seems to have escaped you completely, is
that you should not suggest doing to others what you would not want
done yourself. It's called the "Golden Rule", Keller. You may want to
look it up sometime.
>The net effect is just what he
>wanted. He has people thinking that he's found something about bad
>business deals I've made and justifies what he is doing with his
>statement that he's only re-posting what I've already posted.
Read my post, Keller. I questioned how you would feel if bad things
about you (that have nothing to do with refractive surgery) were made
public in this forum. I have not made those things public. I have not
said that I would make them public. I asked rhetorically if it is time
for you to see your dirty laundry aired, if you are going to be
talking about what an ex may or may not have said about me.
> Outright
>lie again.
The opposite of the truth is a lie. When you distort my words into
something that was not said it's not surprising that what you come up
with is a lie. It's just that I didn't say it.
>I really don't think a judge or jury would think his little question
>game is very funny.
I don't know about a judge or jury, but I find you bringing up
publishing what may be in my personal divorce papers appalling, crude,
and so very typical of you. I find your outrage that I suggest the
same thing could happen to you very typical of the hypocrisy that you
drag around with you in this forum.
>I think they would see it just as being just as
>intentional as it is. Pre-meditated and intentional.
Is that how you see what you said? It is exactly how I saw it and I
responded appropriately.
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 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| On 24 Feb 2006 21:17:56 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I didn't mention "a case of contempt, lies, threats, fines and
>incarceration", did I?
Yes, actually you have.
> There you go again. I was speaking in
>generalities and you cannot seem to see past this one particular case.
Then please clarify exactly what generalities to which you were
speaking that have anything to do with refractive 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.
| |
|
| On 2006-02-25 00:16:09 -0500, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> said:
> RT scolds me for simply
> commenting on what Brent found, but doesn't say a word when Glenn posts
> what he thinks he's found out about me.
You haven't read my posts very carefully. I've "scolded" Glenn during
this current exchange with you.
Glenn has never threatened to post any information about you. It was a
challenge--- ie. how would you feel if personal information that has
nothing to do with RS were posted about you in this forum and others.
He didn't threaten to actually post it, but it appears he was trying to
get you to understand how he feels when his personal life has been
exposed to the world. Does he actually possess any information? Who
knows. The internet is a great poker face. And you did get all
upset--so now take your feelings and think about how he might feel with
all his PERSONAL dirty laundry exposed by you and Hanson.
Sandy, you reveal quite a bit about your personal life on this NG--your
dealings with your neighbors, your business, your husband's retirement,
the passing of your business to your son etc. All of this has nothing
to do with RS and becomes grist for the mill. Some of your posts remind
me of Kathy Lee Gifford--some of it so personal that I cringe to read
it. You have to assume that someone is filing that away and is going to
use it against you later on.
Obviously this "fight" has gone beyond RS and is personal and the
parties involved are taking it personally.
My unsolicited advice would be for everyone to write up a big public
apology and refrain from straying from the topic of LASIK in the
future. It may save all parties involved a lot of time, money and most
importantly grief.
--
~RT
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| ahh... I mistakenly gave you more credit than you deserved. I was
overly optimistic.
What you might want to respond to is why you have a name like Lasik
Complications when the Lasik procedure is the safest, most
predictable, most performed surgery of all time with the fewest
complications.
Why do you feel it is necessary for you to attack it?
On 24 Feb 2006 16:59:47 -0800, "Lasik Complications"
<galin99do@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Please, do not thank me. I was not trying to tell her to put a cork in
>it. The vulgarity, ugliness, crudeness and everything terrible in this
>forum is beyond belief. I was just trying to tell her that you are all
>not worth answering to. As a matter of fact, I will not waste my time
>answering you again. What does it gain? Nothing! I see nothing where
>supposedly this forum was to try and help people with lasik questions
>and possible lasik complications. My suggestion to her is to
>completely ignore you, I know you won't go away, but you will have to
>go find someone else to pick on. Even with my eyes dry and burning, I
>could not be as mean as you are. You must be a totally unhappy
>individual that cannot stand to see someone else have a different
>opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But for some
>reason, some people cannot respect that.
>Lasik Complications
| |
| Ragnar 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| Well... he's the one who trained her and fed her many of the crazy
stories that he wouldn't dare post himself. If he did, he would have
been out of business 2 years earlier than he actually lasted.
On 24 Feb 2006 21:22:40 -0800, "serebel" <serebel@aol.com> wrote:
>You're as bad as Link when it comes to posting these baby whines, Sandy.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| >big snip<
It seems that RT very clearly understands the point I've attempted to
make.
>My unsolicited advice would be for everyone to write up a big public
>apology and refrain from straying from the topic of LASIK in the
>future. It may save all parties involved a lot of time, money and most
>importantly grief.
Pretty good advice. I do my level best to not instigate issues that do
not directly relate to refractive surgery, but I absolutely do respond
when others bring up errata that is nothing more than a personal
attack. Consider that a fault.
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.
| |
|
| I am going to explain this one more time, and then I'm moving on.
I never said ANYTHING about publishing what your ex-wife may or may not
have said. I was discussing the issue of how just about anything can
appear in an "official court document" and may or may not be the truth.
I used the example of the possibility that your ex-wife may have filed
statements in "official court documents" that may not be true, but yet
they are still on record in "official court documents".
I never implied that I would publish anything here, never threatened
to, never implied that I've seen any court records, blah, blah, blah.
You, on the other hand, have come out and stated that you have been
investigating me personally. You may reference to what you found, and
the way you worded it conveyed the information that you had found a
divorce, bad business dealings and ex-neighbor stuff.
You never said that IF there was a divorce or IF there were bad
business dealings, you could publish them here. You asked if it was
now time to do so. You conveyed your "information" in a way that
assumptions were made about me that are untrue and of course, Ragnar
Roiland ran with it all as you knew he would.
There's a huge difference, Hagele. You are too stubborn to see it,
and even RT, who is the person I most respect around here, doesn't seem
to see it either. I am entirely frustrated and tired of trying to
point this out to you, Hagele. RT is right--I've been way too candid
about myself personally, basically because I am a very open person and
whether or not Hagele agrees, I am not ashamed of anything he could
possibly find in his ongoing investigation of me. However, it is not
necessary for him to do this to pursue a libel lawsuit against me. All
he needs is my address so he can serve me. Normally, an attorney would
be handling all of this. I think that LC is correct and there is an
element of obsession. I also think that for all of Glenn's cries that
Brent is a cyberstalker, Glenn has reduced himself to the same.
Hagele, why don't you just contact the owner of
http://www.lasikdisaster.com and make a written demand that anything
you consider to be libel be removed? Isn't that normally the first
step in this type of litigation? If you can't find the owner, contact
the hosting company and they'll do it for you. I would think that any
decent attorney would be able to handle this correctly for you, though.
| |
| Glenn - USAEyes.org 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:07:51 GMT, Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>ahh... I mistakenly gave you more credit than you deserved. I was
>overly optimistic.
>
>What you might want to respond to is why you have a name like Lasik
>Complications when the Lasik procedure is the safest, most
>predictable, most performed surgery of all time with the fewest
>complications.
>Why do you feel it is necessary for you to attack it?
Not to answer for her, but she did have complications after Lasik that
have reportedly not fully resolved.
Although Lasik is considered safe and effective and although millions
are delighted with there outcomes, all surgery will have unwanted
outcomes. Even if the percentage is small, it is an important group
who need resources of their own to help manage or resolve the problem.
Glenn
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 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| On 25 Feb 2006 09:29:10 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>I am going to explain this one more time, and then I'm moving on.
Promises, promises.
>I never said ANYTHING about publishing what your ex-wife may or may not
>have said. I was discussing the issue of how just about anything can
>appear in an "official court document" and may or may not be the truth.
I'm now to the point where I am in total agreement with Ragnar on this
one. You are a liar. And a liar who can easily be proven a liar.
Here is exactly what you said:
>After all, if that is how we are to read "court documents", you are a
>tax evader. There is at least one court document accusing you of such,
>isn't there? Not to mention what your ex-wife probably complained
>about in her "court documents".
And the link: http://makeashorterlink.com/?C1D9524BC
Here is one of a series of later responses where Keller affirms that
she has previously brought up the point about publishing what my
ex-wife may or may not have said in divorce papers. This particular
quote also affirms that Keller had previously discussed Brent Hanson's
case:
>I pointed out to you that you would probably not call everything that
>your ex-wife filed in your divorce case as "TRUTH" in an effort to try
>to get you to admit that not everything in an "official court document"
>is the TRUTH, as you would try to have people believe with regard to
>Brent Hanson.
And the link:http://makeashorterlink.com/?V2F9524BC
>I used the example of the possibility that your ex-wife may have filed
>statements in "official court documents" that may not be true, but yet
>they are still on record in "official court documents".
What does what my ex-wife may or may not have said 15 years ago during
a divorce have to do with refractive surgery? What does what my
ex-wife may or may not have said have to do with the final
adjudication against Brent Hanson of LasikFraud.com by a Texas court
finding that he lied, defamed, and was in contempt of a court order?
>You, on the other hand, have come out and stated that you have been
>investigating me personally.
As I said, investigation is a common and, practically speaking,
required part of any potential litigation.
>You may reference to what you found,
I think you meant "made reference", but this is not to what I have
found. At least not totally.
>You never said that IF there was a divorce or IF there were bad
>business dealings, you could publish them here.
Yet another red herring Keller. You didn't say anything about "IF"
when referencing my divorce, did you?
>You conveyed your "information" in a way that
>assumptions were made about me that are untrue and of course, Ragnar
>Roiland ran with it all as you knew he would.
I do not know what Ragnar is going to assume, or what Ragnar is going
to do, or anyone else for that matter. You are attempting to blame me
for what others are doing. Others with whom I have no affiliation.
>There's a huge difference, Hagele. You are too stubborn to see it,
>and even RT, who is the person I most respect around here, doesn't seem
>to see it either. I am entirely frustrated and tired of trying to
>point this out to you, Hagele.
Perhaps it would be helpful if you could just for a nanosecond
consider that you may have been wrong. Wrong to bring up my personal
history. Wrong to defend Brent Hanson. Wrong to suggest that the
certified court documents I have presented were somehow not truthful.
Wrong to go on and on and on and on and on trying to dig yourself out
of the hole you put yourself in.
RT, like many others I presume, does not see the difference because
there is no difference, Keller.
>RT is right--I've been way too candid
>about myself personally, basically because I am a very open person and
>whether or not Hagele agrees, I am not ashamed of anything he could
>possibly find in his ongoing investigation of me.
Why do you even care if I would agree whether or not you would be
ashamed of what an investigation may have found?
Considering some of the abhorrent things you have said in this
newsgroup, I personally don't think you have enough shame to be able
to be embarrassed by your acts and statements. IMO you demonstrate the
opinion that you are always right in every way. This issue is a case
in point. You just cannot admit that it was wrong to bring up my
divorce and you cannot admit that my response is just that - a
response - to something you did.
>However, it is not
>necessary for him to do this to pursue a libel lawsuit against me. All
>he needs is my address so he can serve me.
So now you are going to advise me on how to litigate? Jeeze Keller,
you have seriously cahones.
> Normally, an attorney would
>be handling all of this.
What difference is it to you if my attorney's are handling the
investigations, if they are handled by independent investigators, if I
am investigating, or if the investigation is a combination of all of
the above?
> I think that LC is correct and there is an
>element of obsession. I also think that for all of Glenn's cries that
>Brent is a cyberstalker, Glenn has reduced himself to the same.
There is absolutely no comparison between my acts and what Brent
Hanson has done against me, against Dr. Boothe, against TLC, against a
whole slew of others. For that matter, there is no comparison between
my acts and what you have done against me.
>Hagele, why don't you just contact the owner of
>http://www.lasikdisaster.com and make a written demand that anything
>you consider to be libel be removed? Isn't that normally the first
>step in this type of litigation?
Again, here we have Keller telling me how to litigate. Look up the
word narcissist, Keller. I do believe it applies to you.
How many narcissists does it take to change a light bulb?
Just one -- but she has to wait for the whole world to revolve around
her.
> If you can't find the owner, contact
>the hosting company and they'll do it for you. I would think that any
>decent attorney would be able to handle this correctly for you, though.
Your advice about how to litigate is undesired. I have much better
advisors.
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 2006-02-25, 9:55 pm |
| There you go again...
Her vision after lasik is superior to pre-lasik even if it isn't
perfect.
Also, with contacts, she sees 20/15
Enough making excuses for that lying witch. Never mind her eyes, in
China, they would execute her for what she has done and believe it or
not.. the Chinese bill the family of the executed person for the cost
of executing them. She deserves no sympathy. I sympathize with
anyone who is innocently naive enough to believe her nonsense.
On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 18:38:20 GMT, Glenn - USAEyes.org
<glenn.hageleSTOPSPAM@USAEyes.org> wrote:
>On Sat, 25 Feb 2006 14:07:51 GMT, Ragnar <ragnarsuomi@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>Not to answer for her, but she did have complications after Lasik that
>have reportedly not fully resolved.
>
>Although Lasik is considered safe and effective and although millions
>are delighted with there outcomes, all surgery will have unwanted
>outcomes. Even if the percentage is small, it is an important group
>who need resources of their own to help manage or resolve the problem.
>
>Glenn
>
>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 2006-02-28, 11:01 am |
| You are such a liar. Unbelivable Assuming you are not lying
now.. then you lied when you said you were visiting your relatives in
Florida and about breaking your ankle, etc.
And you have been divorced dear. Mr. Keller is victim #2 of the
succubus.
On 24 Feb 2006 00:13:26 -0800, "Sandy" <sandy@savvysneaks.com> wrote:
>Actually, Christopher, I am not divorced. I have been married for over
>21 years. Mr. Keller is just fine, thank you. We use no glitter on
>the shoes, but since you seem so hung up on them, we'd be happy to make
>you a pair sometime and find some glitter for yours. I still haven't
>been to Florida, but maybe I could deliver your shoes to you---meet you
>at the Macaroni Grill??
|
| |
|
|