Page 1 of 5 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 43

Thread: Off Topic

  1. #1
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    462

    Default Off Topic

    Off topic posts from this thread http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=3687 were moved to this new thread, in order to keep off topic comments separate from talk on Rosacea. redhotoz
    Quote Originally Posted by Peter
    Hello Trey

    Well I still find your post negative but then we are both entitled to our opinions.
    I think I can work out what you are insinuating from your reply and nothing could be further from the truth. At least I say it as it is and I am forthright, which is not everyone's style.

    Remarks from you like "It is clear to me that both Rick and Peter for the most part become active only when Nase's name is mentioned. Curious" taken from another thread do not win you any respect from me. Why not have the courage to say what you really mean rather than hide behind the word "curious".

    Anyway this thread is about the red light clinical trial and I for one intend to be optimistic that it will prove it's benefits to rosacea sufferers and hopefully open up the way for a new recognised method of treatment. Let's wait and see what the future brings, shall we?

    Best wishes

    Peter
    Peter,
    You seem to not only want to change opinions (especially those that may be negative towards RLT), but also change the way people write and interact.

    "you are insinuating from your reply and nothing could be further from the truth"

    "Why not have the courage to say what you really mean rather than hide behind the word "curious""

    Please read what is written and assume the writer meant them as such. I would recommend you do not project your beliefs and juxtapose them against others' comments.

    All of this while inputing nonsequitur comments presented in an entirely different thread/subject area. Must have really bothered you.

    I will refrain from falling to that level.

    Best,
    Trey

  2. #2
    Senior Member Peter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    Hello Trey

    No wonder it took you 3 weeks to reply, given all those unusual words you have used which will have had some people reaching for their dictionaries. ;)

    If you look back at my posts to you, you will see that I wrote "we are both entitled to our opinions" and "At least I say it as it is and I am forthright, which is not everyone's style". Anyone who reads my posts knows that I am a frank person. I say what I believe openly, I am careful with logical conclusions, and have never been someone who twists words or distorts things to obscure the real meaning of a post, so your talk of "inputing nonsequitur comments" doesn't apply to me.

    By the way should it not be “inputting”, and “non sequitur” as two words ?

    The only negative feedback I received on red light treatment came from one camp and I think the history of that is well documented now, so no need to go over it again. This thread was about the proposed clinical trial in the pipeline, so isn't that the subject that we should now be discussing amongst ourselves?

    As I have previously said, I am pleased that there will be a trial and I am happy to wait and see how it turns out. The key thing is that the trial will be conducted honestly by a respected medical professional, and what more could anyone ask for? Again I have said that I will keep the members on this Forum posted on any feedback I hear, good or bad and that's what I intend to do.

    Best wishes

    Peter

  3. #3
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter
    Hello Trey

    No wonder it took you 3 weeks to reply, given all those unusual words you have used which will have had some people reaching for their dictionaries. ;)

    If you look back at my posts to you, you will see that I wrote "we are both entitled to our opinions" and "At least I say it as it is and I am forthright, which is not everyone's style". Anyone who reads my posts knows that I am a frank person. I say what I believe openly, I am careful with logical conclusions, and have never been someone who twists words or distorts things to obscure the real meaning of a post, so your talk of "inputing nonsequitur comments" doesn't apply to me.

    By the way should it not be “inputting”, and “non sequitur” as two words ?

    The only negative feedback I received on red light treatment came from one camp and I think the history of that is well documented now, so no need to go over it again. This thread was about the proposed clinical trial in the pipeline, so isn't that the subject that we should now be discussing amongst ourselves?

    As I have previously said, I am pleased that there will be a trial and I am happy to wait and see how it turns out. The key thing is that the trial will be conducted honestly by a respected medical professional, and what more could anyone ask for? Again I have said that I will keep the members on this Forum posted on any feedback I hear, good or bad and that's what I intend to do.

    Best wishes

    Peter
    Peter,
    I only have two things to say to what you started: 1) your back handed defamation does not go unnoticed and really does not add to your credibility or likability for that matter and 2) people will disagree with you in life, so deal with it rather than continually badgering those that do.

    As a side note, you have time to review the dictionary and correct my spelling. Good for you. I will not waste my time caring about your grammar or spelling. Have fun with that if you must.

    Best :D
    Trey

  4. #4
    Senior Member redhotoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Hi Trey

    I think it has been made perfectly clear that you and Peter do not see eye to eye on this Forum. Call it a personality clash or whatever ever you like. Nobody here wants to judge people from what they post but reality is, that is the only contact most of us have with each other. This Forum is not about winning ‘brownie’ points with other members, it’s about working together to try and find a way to control the Rosacea beast.

    I am sure that in real life both yourself and Peter are genuinely nice people. The fact is, you guys just don’t get along! Obviously it sparked somewhere along the line but surely it’s time to let it go!

    We all have our opinions and everyone’s opinion is worthy of consideration. What I read is a lot of assumptions being made which do not reflect the true intent of the post. Well, that is how I read it. An interesting article I read a little while ago warned of the dangers of misinterpreting e-mails and the same can be applied to posts in this Forum.

    Jenny
    Currently trying: Apr 06 Bee Wilder's Candida (natural healing) Diet; May 06 Home made red LED array; Aug 06 ZZ ointment.

  5. #5
    Senior Member Peter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clsykes00


    Peter,
    I only have two things to say to what you started: 1) your back handed defamation does not go unnoticed and really does not add to your credibility or likability for that matter and 2) people will disagree with you in life, so deal with it rather than continually badgering those that do.

    As a side note, you have time to review the dictionary and correct my spelling. Good for you. I will not waste my time caring about your grammar or spelling. Have fun with that if you must.

    Best
    Trey
    Hello Trey,

    Good to see that you have a sense of humour

    I have repeatedly written that we are all entitled to our opinions and also reminded you that this is a thread about a red light clinical trial. TP and James have also posted that they want to read about the trial so I think that should be respected.

    Even if James's suggestions for a special 'outside' thread don't come to fruition, rather than continue like this on the board, why not send me a PM if you want to discuss any issues further?

    Thank you

    Peter

  6. #6
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redhotoz
    Hi Trey

    I think it has been made perfectly clear that you and Peter do not see eye to eye on this Forum. Call it a personality clash or whatever ever you like. Nobody here wants to judge people from what they post but reality is, that is the only contact most of us have with each other. This Forum is not about winning ‘brownie’ points with other members, it’s about working together to try and find a way to control the Rosacea beast.

    I am sure that in real life both yourself and Peter are genuinely nice people. The fact is, you guys just don’t get along! Obviously it sparked somewhere along the line but surely it’s time to let it go!

    We all have our opinions and everyone’s opinion is worthy of consideration. What I read is a lot of assumptions being made which do not reflect the true intent of the post. Well, that is how I read it. An interesting article I read a little while ago warned of the dangers of misinterpreting e-mails and the same can be applied to posts in this Forum.

    Jenny
    Wonder why this was only addressed to me and not Peter as well (especially since per anyone's review, he started the personal jabs and continues to be personal following the post quoted above)?

    Jenny, review the posts and attack the instigator. Your allegiance (and bias as stated before to you in a PM) is transparent.

    Now, I would love to get back to the topic at hand. Just stop getting personal with me first, and this applied to both Peter and Jenny.

    Best,
    Trey

  7. #7
    Senior Member Peter's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    Hello Trey

    You wrote:

    > What was Dr Nase's opposition to RLT? What do you think his motivations were to refute the benefits of RLT? <

    It's a pity you feel it necessary to raise this issue again. I'm sure most people want to move on. However, anyone wanting to understand this issue - and especially new members who might otherwise be mystified by much of this discussion - could check these two Forum threads on red light therapy, both started by Nase and which resulted in his being banned from the group:

    LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing

    http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=2713

    Last Post on Topic & then Rosacea Sufferers Make up Mind

    http://forum.rosaceagroup.org/viewtopic.php?t=2778

    The relevant section of the Debunking web site explains the whole situation in more detail:

    http://www.debunkingnase.org/index.p...nned%2C_Banned


    Best wishes

    Peter

  8. #8
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Peter
    It's a pity you feel it necessary to raise this issue again.
    Can I ask an honest question without you being so negative and making such gross assumptions about me and my motivations (note: more examples of you twisting my thoughts and words in an effort to try to make someone look bad if they are skeptical of RLT)? I did not follow the history of your discussions with Dr Nase about RLT and want to honestly know what his motivation is for denouncing the reported efficacy of RLT.

    Now, I will ask again, what do you honestly think Dr Nase's motivations are in denouncing the empirical evidence of RLT? Is he making money from a competing product? I ask this because I, like many others, find his book to be a trusted source of information for rosaceans. Now, I am for some reasons expected to think he is wrong. So, I am wondering what his motivations are?

    I find it very uncomfortable to get confidence in a product that two people on this site get SO dogmatic about their opinions that they are blinded to the real question.

    Best,
    Trey

  9. #9
    Senior Member redhotoz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,500

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by clsykes00
    Can I ask an honest question without you being so negative and making such gross assumptions about me and my motivations (note: more examples of you twisting my thoughts and words in an effort to try to make someone look bad if they are skeptical of RLT)? I did not follow the history of your discussions with Dr Nase about RLT and want to honestly know what his motivation is for denouncing the reported efficacy of RLT.

    Now, I will ask again, what do you honestly think Dr Nase's motivations are in denouncing the empirical evidence of RLT? Is he making money from a competing product? I ask this because I, like many others, find his book to be a trusted source of information for rosaceans. Now, I am for some reasons expected to think he is wrong. So, I am wondering what his motivations are?

    I find it very uncomfortable to get confidence in a product that two people on this site get SO dogmatic about their opinions that they are blinded to the real question.
    Honestly Trey, if you dont want people making assumptions then please do leave out the added bits of twisting words etc. It truly doesn't help! "Blinded to the real question" because of your approach Trey!

    Anyway, yes, please by all means, do ask an honest question! Here is the answer:

    Ok...ahhh...well...it started back when Peter caught Nase out on a lie about his qualifications. Therefore, Nase and Peter have a hate-hate relationship. Peter left the Forum for a while and when Peter came back Nase appeared to do everything in his power to discredit him. Of course, Peter has spoken about the great improvement of using red light therapy for his own Rosacea symptoms and Nase took that issue up. If you read through the links that Peter provided above, glad he did it rather than me having to look them up, you will find a lot of discrepancies. Like Nase quoting from a horse web site about the use of LASER but stating that it was about RLT, the list goes on! Why? Because of a personal vendetta.

    Yes, well, I may get into trouble for posting this TRUTH but you asked.

    Jen
    Currently trying: Apr 06 Bee Wilder's Candida (natural healing) Diet; May 06 Home made red LED array; Aug 06 ZZ ointment.

  10. #10
    This user has been banned from this forum
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Philly
    Posts
    462

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by redhotoz
    Quote Originally Posted by clsykes00
    Can I ask an honest question without you being so negative and making such gross assumptions about me and my motivations (note: more examples of you twisting my thoughts and words in an effort to try to make someone look bad if they are skeptical of RLT)? I did not follow the history of your discussions with Dr Nase about RLT and want to honestly know what his motivation is for denouncing the reported efficacy of RLT.

    Now, I will ask again, what do you honestly think Dr Nase's motivations are in denouncing the empirical evidence of RLT? Is he making money from a competing product? I ask this because I, like many others, find his book to be a trusted source of information for rosaceans. Now, I am for some reasons expected to think he is wrong. So, I am wondering what his motivations are?

    I find it very uncomfortable to get confidence in a product that two people on this site get SO dogmatic about their opinions that they are blinded to the real question.
    Honestly Trey, if you dont want people making assumptions then please do leave out the added bits of twitsing words etc. It truly doesn't help! "Blinded to the real question" because of your approach Trey!

    Anyway, yes, please by all means, do ask an honest question! Here is the answer:

    Ok...ahhh...well...it started back when Peter caught Nase out on a lie about his qualifications. Therefore, Nase and Peter have a hate-hate relationship. Peter left the Forum for a while and when Peter came back Nase appeared to do everything in his power to discredit him. Of course, Peter has spoken about the great improvement of using red light therapy for his own Rosacea symptoms and Nase took that issue up. If you read through the links that Peter provided above, glad he did it rather than me having to look them up, you will find a lot of discrepancies. Like Nase quoting from a horse web site about the use of LASER but stating that it was about RLT, the list goes on! Why? Because of a personal vendetta.

    Yes, well, I may get into trouble for posting this TRUTH but you asked.

    Jen
    Red,
    Why not speak to Peter about it. He as you can see from these posts starts the personal attacks. Unless you are of course biased for some reason.

    Just stunning!

Similar Threads

  1. Off Topic a little...not anymore :)
    By mrsmoof in forum Newbie questions / Introduction
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: 28th March 2010, 12:19 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •