> In article <Xns95BBB5C0A7493DrLeukoma[at]207.217.125.201> ,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > I guess it's true that you can never win an argument with a child.
> > > DrG
> How disappointing to have that be the response to my legitimate
> questions that I spent so long composing, but *Dr.* G's certainly
> consistently evasive of personal responsibility, if nothing else. Oh
> well.

> In article <Xns95BAAA4D64245DrLeukoma[at]207.217.125.201> ,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drg[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> > news:RTMD24-AA409B.17074009122004[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> > > If you want me to be nice, then apologize.
> For what? Calling it like I see it? Are you the only one allowed to do
> that with impunity?
> > > I still think you distort "the facts" to tell your own biased story of
> > > LASIK. If someone doesn't agree with your biased reading or
> > > interpretation, they are a "problem." As you say, you "call them like
> > > you see them" which was (and is my point). It's "how" you see it that
> > > is not a universal undeniable truth--it's your interpretation. You say
> > > it in one breath and deny it in another, which makes it impossible to
> > > have a decent debate with you.
> > > Excuse me: Say what in one breath, and say what in another? If you are
> > painting me as inconsistent, then at least tell me what I am inconsistent
> > about. You are simply making this up out of whole cloth because I have
> > never said such a thing in this NG.
> Pay attention: In one breath you say you "call them like
> you see them" and then in the next breath you say your interpretations
> of articles are unbiased. I'm not saying you are inconsistent, but
> completely unaware of how you distort and misread certain articles to
> support a certain agenda.
> > BTW, I don't tell any story about
> > LASIK. I leave that up to the patients and to Glenn.
> What, you are now denying you have an opinion about LASIK???? I'm
> confused.
> > Isn't this what the article said? Children?
> Even you, Dr. G, are someone's child. Read into that what you will.
> > Again, please tell me where I blamed a particular eye disease on LASIK.
> > What I said was either the pterygium was present before LASIK, or LASIK
> > caused it.
> You just said it again "LASIK caused it."
> > As an eye doctor, I rather think that it was present before
> > LASIK. Pterygiums, by the way, are thought to be caused by dryness.
> You "rather" think? Decisions, decisions...
> > We
> > won't even fit contact lenses on them. Are you willing to get your Ph.D.
> > trained mind around this concept?
> Good. People shouldn't perform LASIK on them either. What do you
> propose the industry should do to prevent that from happening to someone
> in the future? How can you, with your knowledge on this subject, help
> someone coming to this board make sure s/he is not a risk for pterygiums
> or at risk for having LASIK performed despite having a pterygium?
> > > And I concede on the subject of whores and STDs. Sounds like you know
> > > what you are talking about
> > > > I am no longer at a disadvantage, because I know who you are: Ragnar's
> > twin.
> > LOL! That's a good one. Still reverting to name calling.
> BTW: I would never accuse you of being inconsistent. In fact, you are
> reassuringly consistent.

> RT <RTMD24[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote in
> news:RTMD24-AA409B.17074009122004[at]newssvr14-ext.news.prodigy.com:
> If you want me to be nice, then apologize.
> > > I still think you distort "the facts" to tell your own biased story of
> > LASIK. If someone doesn't agree with your biased reading or
> > interpretation, they are a "problem." As you say, you "call them like
> > you see them" which was (and is my point). It's "how" you see it that
> > is not a universal undeniable truth--it's your interpretation. You say
> > it in one breath and deny it in another, which makes it impossible to
> > have a decent debate with you.
> Excuse me: Say what in one breath, and say what in another? If you are
> painting me as inconsistent, then at least tell me what I am inconsistent
> about. You are simply making this up out of whole cloth because I have
> never said such a thing in this NG. BTW, I don't tell any story about
> LASIK. I leave that up to the patients and to Glenn.
> > > Plus, you keep changing your story. First you are appalled that
> > Singaporeans perform surgery on (young) children (your reading of that
> > article) and now you argue that those "who have done LASIK on their
> > families may just might be a little zealous." First you blame that
> > eye disease the tennis player had on LASIK, and then you are appalled
> > that a surgeon would do LASIK on a person with that eye disease.
> > Which is it?
> Isn't this what the article said? Children? I don't care if the
> children are their own, I still don't think it is right. What I said was
> that surgeons who (and now this will require you to pay attention)
> dismiss complications as minor temporary dryness or night vision
> disturbances AND who do LASIK on their own families just might be
> considered a little zealous and therefore we can probably take their
> statement with a grain of salt.
> Again, please tell me where I blamed a particular eye disease on LASIK.
> What I said was either the pterygium was present before LASIK, or LASIK
> caused it. As an eye doctor, I rather think that it was present before
> LASIK. Pterygiums, by the way, are thought to be caused by dryness. We
> won't even fit contact lenses on them. Are you willing to get your Ph.D.
> trained mind around this concept?
> > > And I concede on the subject of whores and STDs. Sounds like you know
> > what you are talking about
> > I am no longer at a disadvantage, because I know who you are: Ragnar's
> twin.
> DrG

> In article <Xns95B9D0D6B17FCdrgleukomacom[at]204.127.204.17> ,
> "Dr. Leukoma" <drgNOSPAM[at]leukoma.com> wrote:
> > Well, then, I bid you adieu, and leave you in the capable hands of Glenn,
> > Rebecca, Brent, Sandy, et. al. Good luck.
> > > DrG
> Oh how dramatic. When challenged to be pro-active and constructive,
> rather than underhandedly and covertly bashing LASIK, he exits.
> Does that tell us something about his true agenda?
> What a shame, because based on his contact lens experience he could
> really help (and has helped) people with post-LASIK complications who
> come to this board.

> I guess it's true that you can never win an argument with a child.
> DrG