Sorry about the duplicate responses to Ron Link.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
I apologize that many of my posts recently have been virtually
identical cut-and-paste denials of meritless accusations from Ron
Link, former head of SurgicalEyes.
Because his unfounded accusations will stay in Internet archives, it
is necessary for me to post a denial each and every time he makes an
accusation. Since he seems intent on repeating the accusations over
and over and over and over, I'm forced to repeat my denial an equal
number of times, even when the thread really is not about his
unjustified accusations.
I am hopeful that eventually Ron Link will stop posting groundless
accusations, I will be able to stop posting denials of those
accusations, and this newsgroup can get back to some semblance of its
original intended purpose.
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.
thats...@yahoo.com
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Because his unfounded accusations will stay in Internet archives, it
> is necessary for me to post a denial each and every time he makes an
> accusation. Since he seems intent on repeating the accusations over
> and over and over and over, I'm forced to repeat my denial an equal
> number of times, even when the thread really is not about his
> unjustified accusations.
>
> I am hopeful that eventually Ron Link will stop posting groundless
> accusations, I will be able to stop posting denials of those
> accusations, and this newsgroup can get back to some semblance of its
> original intended purpose.
One of the most surreal aspects of this newsgroup is that there are
actually probably a few participants who take this kind of tripe
seriously.
Anyone with an ounce of common sense sees it for what it is.
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
"DID TOO!"
"DID NOT!"
Etc, perpetuated ad nauseum until one has to pee, falls asleep, or gets
bored of the game. For however it goes on, doubtless both children
think they somehow "lose" if they stop answering.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
response to the same accusation in the newsgroup, is because search
engines do not always see things as one contiguous group.
If someone surfing the Internet saw something like the demand for a
retraction of a lie, it is reasonable that the surfer would assume
that there is some sort of basis in reality to that demand. Without my
immediate and "attached" denial, that demand would simply hang out
there as if it had some validity.
Because of the nature of the Internet, I really have no choice but to
respond to accusations, no matter how unfounded they may be or how
often they are made.
The termination of my response is automatic. When there is not false
accusation, there is no reason to respond.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself, Ron
Link.
Ragnar
"Oh no you didn't!"
thats...@yahoo.com
Glenn - USAEyes.org wrote:
> Ron Link, I have not stated any falsehoods about you. I have not lied
> about you.
What a riot! Two more "DID NOT!"s and one more "DID TOO!".
I wonder how many more of these we can rack up. I'm betting on 1,000 or
more.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
the false accusations end.
Ragnar
the 1,000 mark. HOwever... I suspect that someone is going to put an
end to this nonsense.
RT
RT <RTM...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <1133803124.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > Have
> > you even bothered to read the dreck that has been posted about me? Even
> > to this day?
I do want to say, that if Roiland did send out mass emails directly to
people or mailings, that is a completely different matter entirely and
could be criminal, postal fraud at the very least. That has nothing to
do with this NG. But I would call his "dreck" on this NG "drivel" and
dismissible. I'm sure that for anyone who matters in your life or career
Ron, they can see "Ragnar" for what he is and dismiss what he says.
--
~RT
Glenn - USAEyes.org
about you. Everything I have ever said about you to anybody is
accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is accurate, or is
clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself.
Glenn - USAEyes.org
you to anybody is accurate, I have legitimate reason to believe is
accurate, or is clearly my opinion. I have not defamed you.
As always: Sue me or keep your meritless accusations to yourself
Glenn Hagele
Glenn - USAEyes.org
I'll second that!
Ragnar
himself by re-posting old messages. I have yet to see any of the lies
he keeps talking about, but that is not the issue.
You are quite wrong about something else though, Glenn is not
insignificant to him. He IDOLIZES Glenn and is insanely envious of
Glenn's success. He is even more upset that Glenn continues to carry
on whereas he has completely failed.
Here's one story that most regulars have probably forgotten. Years
ago, Ron went into one of his periodic outbursts and made a fool of
himself. He then summoned his "army" of SE loyalists to flood this
newsgroup with their "comments" His army wound up being two of his
associates... how pathetic.
And to finish off this message... Ron emphatically declared he would
never post on this newsgroup every again... and then started again..
and then made a second declaration... so much for declarations.
He will stop soon.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:00:47 GMT, RT <RTM...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1133803124.7...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> Have
>> you even bothered to read the dreck that has been posted about me? Even
>> to this day?
>Yeah, I read it at the time, but I don't remember the details. I'm sure
>no one else does either. I think you have a misplaced sense of grandeur.
>And you're also placing too much importance on people like Hagele and
>Roiland. They are also insignificant in the grand scheme of things,
>particularly if you are no longer involved in the RS business. So what's
>the harm that's been done?
>
> >It's not being posted about you and you hide behind a
>> moniker. What are you afraid of?
>How will knowing my real name make any difference? I use the same screen
>name (alias) and yahoo address for all the LASIK related sites I post on
>and register for (since 2003). It's easy to see what my LASIK
>experiences are and what my opinions are across different boards. I have
>never posted anywhere in the cyber RS world under a different alias.
>
>Why do you post under multiple aliases?
Ragnar
Do you disregard me RT? And if so.. name two people in this
newsgroup that you don't disregard...
Ragnar
You know something that is very interesting... this newsgroup is meant
to be a resource for LASIK information... yet Ron has hijaaked the
newsgroup as his personal dumping ground for whining. He's not just
whining.. he is repeating the same long winded garbage over and over
again as spam. He doesn't even attempt to provide anything helpful
to anyone. I will do that for him: Everyone who is a fan of Ron's...
don't have LASIK.. wear glasses instead.
For those with functioning brains, you should strongly consider
having LASIK done if you are dependant upon glasses or contact lenses
and older than 20 years old.
On Mon, 05 Dec 2005 18:17:36 GMT, RT <RTM...@NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <1133806106....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> lin...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>> In closing - Not all Muslims are potential terrorists. That's a heinous
>> thing to say RT. You make false postulations and then base your logic
>> on false premises. I 'm wasting my time corresponding with you.
>
>Oh please, that was a sarcastic statement to show how *your* logic is
>flawed. I apologize for presenting such an example to you. I forgot you
>have trouble reading tone and intention in internet postings.
>
>Please, no one is asking you to correspond with me. But if you are going
>to post on a public NG then I have every right to say as I please in
>response. If you really read what I'm saying, you'll see that I'm trying
>to help you. Whatever.