facts mean little if anything to these people... they have a agenda... period.
actually you will notice that I now delete the original message so as not to
repeat it.

"sno.driftenator" <snodriftenator[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167533823.676457.301900[at]n51g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

sno.driftenator wrote:
- quote -


Too many variables to do this. Since this is an unmoderated group,
there is little one can do to stop the loony train. At least when Scott
changes the title to spam alert, one can just bypass the thread
entirely.

serebel wrote:
- quote -

How about coming up with a factual response in a single post that can
be used instead of just quoting verbatim? Keep it as a text clipping
and just paste it into the response. Then the "long rant" won't be
repeated over and over which is what Scott is doing by quoting them
verbatim. As it stands now Scott is just adding their words to more
search engines.

sno.driftenator wrote:
- quote -


We have ad nauseum pointed out what's wrong with their posts and yet
they continue to post the same old crap. Since that doesn't work and
takes too much time, the "spam alert" at least saves one from reliving
the long rants over and over.

serebel wrote:
- quote -

This _was_ my opinion LOL. I don't see the value of just simply quoting
the post. Don't you think it would make it more likely for search
engines to pick it up? Why repeat the same crap over and over. I'm sure
the "spammers" enjoy having their posts repeated verbatim without any
refutation.

My _opinion_ is that it would be better to point out what is wrong in
their posts than just quoting them verbatim and giving them a "spam"
subject heading. Disagreeing with someone doesn't make their post spam.
But certainly just quoting a post _without adding anything of
substance_ is definitely spam.

"The definition of a spammer--posting the same information over and over and
adding nothing to further the subject at hand"
Exactly what Hanson, Birch and others do over and over and over and over again.
The same old outdated obsessive-compulsive bullshit about Glen... the miraculous
truth of the lasik report... the "your eyes are going to melt if you have lasik
crap"... etc... etc... etc...
Besides which, if you don't like what I have to say don't read it, use a decent
newsreader and killfile me... or just go away... your choice.

"sno.driftenator" <snodriftenator[at]gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1167513424.870112.271650[at]k21g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
- quote -

sno.driftenator wrote:
- quote -


I disagree here, Scott is performing a service to alert readers to the
spam that the flappies post. if you don't like Scotts posts, please
provide your opinion or go out for a walk.

Scott wrote:
- quote -

By the way, now that I've decided to take the plunge and post to this
newsgroup, I'd like to kindly request that you, Scott, quit reposting
everything twice or more when you don't agree with what the poster
says. Either provide your opinion or go out for a walk. If anyone's
spamming this group, you are because you simply repost what others have
said with a subject change. You provide nothing of substance or add to
anyone's knowledge about Lasik. The definition of a spammer--posting
the same information over and over and adding nothing to further the
subject at hand...

"Brent Hanson - USAEyes.info" <do_not_contact[at]anywhere.com> wrote in message
news:jLGdnX_D5Y7R2QvYnZ2dnUVZ_qSrnZ2d[at]comcast.com...

USAEyes is a trademark of the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance (CRSQA, www.USAEyes.org), a nonprofit patient advocacy.

The use of usaeyes.INFO, usaeyes.BIZ, usaeyes.NET, usaeyes.US, and
other use of USAEyes by Brent Hanson is not approved by Council for
Refractive Surgery Quality Assurance. Brent Hanson is not in any
manner affiliated with the Council for Refractive Surgery Quality
Assurance.

Brent Hanson is not in any way affiliated with USAEyes.org.

The creation of the usaeyes.INFO website and purchase of similar
domains by Brent Hanson appears to be a violation of the US Federal
Anti-Cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act and appears to be in
violation of regulations under the authority of the Internet
Corporation of Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN).

Brent Hanson is currently being litigated against for defamation and
invasion of privacy in California Superior Court, Sacramento. Brent
Hanson previously lost a defamation lawsuit brought against him by
William Boothe, MD, was found in contempt of court, and was sentenced
to 540 days in jail. For details regarding both defamation cases
including a copy of the Texas court's finding of contempt and
sentence, see http://www.glennhagele.com/brenthanson/

Glenn Hagele
Executive Director
USAEyes.org
Patient Advocacy Surgeon Certification

"Consider and Choose With Confidence"

Email to glenn dot hagele at usaeyes dot org

http://www.USAEyes.org

Lasik Bulletin Board
http://www.USAEyes.org/Ask-Lasik-Expert/

I am not a doctor.

Copyright 2006
All Rights Reserved