> if it doesn't appeal to you... don't read.

> In article <75gXh.121647$6m4.104793[at]pd7urf1no> ,
> You say you've been around on this NG for 10 years. If that's the case
> then you'd know that this NG used to be very helpful and used to provide
> true point/counterpoint (to use SErebel's term). Then you came along and
> started this unintellectual campaign to mark everything you don't agree
> with as spam. Then SErebel followed suit. I do believe SErebel has a
> functioning critical mind because he lets it shine through from time to
> time. Unfortunately he is not very creative and just latches onto
> someone and follows suit (first Ragnar and now you). I haven't seen such
> flashes from you
> There will always be extreme anti-LASIKs (Flapmelt comes to mind) and
> extreme pro-LASIKS (Ragnar), but there was useful, helpful information
> on here along with some healthy debate. Glenn, Dr. G and Grant Mason
> (when he remembered to play nice ) for example.
> The more you say this is an agenda driven NG, the more obvious it is you
> recently began reading this NG. Why don't you go back and read the
> archives and you'll see that yes, there are always people on this NG
> with an agenda, but before you began posting "spam," before SErebel took
> the uninspired road to copy you, and before Burch had LASIK, people
> actually discussed the issues rather than just writing the spam misnomer
> and reposting the same articles over and over. Yawn.
> --
> ~RT

> this is a agenda driven newsgroup and for the most part nobody gets help.
> I am sure others will disagree ( and probably start a new round of nonsense
> postings) but the information on Glens site is far more helpful for
> prospective
> patients.
> look at the abuse you had to take from southeasteye merely for mentioning the
> new laser system.
> hardly a welcoming open forum for information sharing.

> On Apr 23, 11:54 pm, RT <RTM...[at]NOSPAMyahoo.com> wrote:
> > I agree with you completely.
> > Except, don't you think that posting on this NG when you have no LASIK
> > issues is a bit obsessive? Why not just go on about your life and not
> > think about LASIK every day, several times a day by reading and posting
> > to this NG? Isn't it obsessive to vow to answer every Sandy post by
> > labeling it spam? Could you be undergoing a bit of denial? There is no
> > denying we do have a vested interest in believing LASIK isn't harmful in
> > the long term.
> *Actually, no. I post here because I simply like to. Keller does post
> spam just as Burch and Hanson. It's the point / counterpoint that I
> like. It's my way to unwind after a work day. I could put out my
> opinion and it won't be censored on this NG.
> > I find that I get obsessive when I start posting on this NG. It was why
> > I stopped posting a year ago, and is why I will stop posting again soon.
> > When I don't read this NG every day and post to it every day, I don't
> > think about LASIK or my eyes at all. I have a lot more time and energy
> > to do other productive things. You are obsessed with LASIK. You post on
> > this NG every day even though you have no ongoing issues. It's like an
> > addiction, no?
> Addiction, probably, but this addiction doesn't harm anyone. If people
> get insulted, grow a thicker skin or don't read here.
> Keller, Minarik, Burch insult me and I don't mind in the least.