Multiple single-subject posts 
Author Message
 Multiple single-subject posts

On Jun 26, 1996 18:00:40 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:

>You do whatever you want Tarka. You dont pay for access so dont tell
>me what I can and can't do with my service that I pay for. I have done
>nothing to be concerned that my provider would give a hoot. Remember
>my posts are also stored on their machines and if they thought I was
>burdoning the system they would tell me so. Now go away you bother me.

"Bruce",

This is precisely the type of post that completely destroys your
credibility.  If the Vitek point is valid, then why do you undermine your
argument by such ridiculous behavior?  He's right.  Your multiple
single-subject posts *are* a nuisance.

Hey, as a patient who has seen the darker, seedier side of dentistry, I'm
with you 100%.  If there was a figure higher than 100%, I would use it.
But confine your crapping to the litter box.  I'm getting pretty tired of
having to step in it.

Alan Tucker



Mon, 14 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts
On Jun 26, 1996 18:00:40 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:

>You do whatever you want Tarka. You dont pay for access so dont tell
>me what I can and can't do with my service that I pay for. I have done
>nothing to be concerned that my provider would give a hoot. Remember
>my posts are also stored on their machines and if they thought I was
>burdoning the system they would tell me so. Now go away you bother me.

"Bruce",

This is precisely the type of post that completely destroys your
credibility.  If the Vitek point is valid, then why do you undermine your
argument by such ridiculous behavior?  He's right.  Your multiple
single-subject posts *are* a nuisance.

Hey, as a patient who has seen the darker, seedier side of dentistry, I'm
with you 100%.  If there was a figure higher than 100%, I would use it.
But confine your crapping to the litter box.  I'm getting pretty tired of
having to step in it.

Alan Tucker

Actually, my prior post should have read, "I'm getting pretty tired of
having to step *OVER* it."   Regardless, the point remains the same.  I
hope you are wise enough to take the advise.

Alan Tucker



Mon, 14 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

Yes I remember your posts ( " as a patient who has seen the darker,
seedier side of dentistry" ) about David the Vampire and Tucker vs.
The Ohio State University, College of Dentistry, in Case Number
95-09914.  So whatever became of your case? Did you loose or win?

|>Hey, as a patient who has seen the darker, seedier side of dentistry, I'm
|>with you 100%.  If there was a figure higher than 100%, I would use it.
|>But confine your crapping to the litter box.  I'm getting pretty tired of
|>having to step in it.
|>
|>Alan Tucker

Regards,
Bruce Chang



Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts
On Jun 29, 1996 16:53:51 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:


>Yes I remember your posts ( " as a patient who has seen the darker,
>seedier side of dentistry" ) about David the Vampire and Tucker vs.
>The Ohio State University, College of Dentistry, in Case Number
>95-09914.  So whatever became of your case? Did you loose or win?

Why does it matter, "Bruce"?  Did you have a wager with somebody?

It depends upon your definition of "lose" and "win".  In a legal sense, I
did not lose, and in a legal sense, I did not win.  However, in a realistic
sense, I lost.  In a m{*filter*}sense, we all lost.  But, then again, if you
would bother to read the posts, you would have already been able to figure
all of this out.

I'll tell you what, "Bruce".  I will refile the complaint, but only on the
condition that you pay the $5,000-$10,000 in attorney fees, not to mention
the huge payola dentists want for their expert reports and testimony.  You
know how honest, kind, generous and caring all dentists are, right "Bruce".
 Surely, they would do this for me at no charge.  Mother Teresa is a
dentist.  Right?  

As a matter of fact, this morning I received a very kind e-mail from a
dentist who regularly posts in this newsgroup.  In short, he agreed with
me.  For different reasons, incompetence runs rampant inside *and* outside
of dental schools.  And, from the patient's perspective, there is no way to
ascertain the skills of the dentist, other than possibly asking friends and
family for referrals.  But, you don't see his post in this newsgroup.  Why
is that, do you think?  

I'll answer that question.  No matter how sincere the individual, which
this person very obviously is, it is the same reason dentists do not
testify against other dentists.  Nobody is going to stick their neck out in
front of their peers without *substantial* financial incentive.  And even
then, most still won't do it.  At least if they plan on working in the same
town after the trial is over.  And even in a totally faceless, impersonal
environment such as the Internet, few people will risk it.  So you can
imagine the enormous difficulties a patient encounters finding one in
reality, much less virtual reality.

Bottom line:  Patients are ALWAYS at a substantial disadvantage.  If you
get burned, it's likely you'll stay burned.  Lawyers don't take cases on a
contingency unless they know that there is an attractive chunk of cash at
the end of the rainbow.  And even in contingency cases, the client is
responsible for an exorbitant sum of expenses, such as filing fees,
discovery, depositions, expert reports, expert witnesses, copies, phone
charges, travel expenses, ad nauseum.  Not to mention additional dental
fees incurred attempting to repair the damage caused by the original
dentist(s).

Dentists carry malpractice insurance.  Patients do not carry "victim of
malpractice" insurance.  

You see, Ohio State University does not settle cases.  You cannot sue the
dentist(s), you cannot sue the dental student(s), you can only sue the
State.  The bureaucrats/doctors at the dental school merely refer the cases
to the office of the Ohio Attorney General, which in turn farms them out to
lawyers on contract with the State.  Then, the lawyers are given unofficial
carte blanche to pad the billable hours as they see fit.  No reason to
settle.  It's only taxpayer money, so who cares?  Not a bad deal.  Except
for the plaintiffs/victims.

In fact, when I attempted to negotiate with the lawyer, I stated that all I
wanted was the tooth repaired.  That's all.  No money, just repair the
tooth they destroyed.  They refused to do so.  In essence, they would
rather have cost the taxpayers a huge sum of money rather than simply
repairing what they broke.  If you are not outraged and sickened by the
disgusting conduct of this particular lawyer, aided and abetted by the
outrageous and disgusting conduct of this particular bureaucrat/doctor,
then I feel sorry for you.  Not just for you, but for anybody.  Because
that says you care much more about $$$ than about actual patient care.

But now, I guess it won't matter.  "Bruce" to the rescue.  Or to the
Batcave, as it were.  I'd prefer the $20,000 to cover my expenses in the
form of a certified check, if it would not be too much trouble.  Or maybe
you can arrange for Vitek to foot the bill.

Well, there it is, "Bruce".  You asked, and I believe in giving detailed
responses.  I hope you won your bet.

Alan Tucker



Wed, 16 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

|>On Jun 29, 1996 16:53:51 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,
|>
|>
|>>
|>>
|>>Yes I remember your posts ( " as a patient who has seen the darker,
|>>seedier side of dentistry" ) about David the Vampire and Tucker vs.
|>>The Ohio State University, College of Dentistry, in Case Number
|>>95-09914.  So whatever became of your case? Did you loose or win?

Alan,
Why in God's Green Earth would you think I had a wager, and if I had
it would have been favored towards you, but your too angry to realize
this.
|>Why does it matter, "Bruce"?  Did you have a wager with somebody?

I admit that the use of "win & lose" was probably not the best way to
put it. In my mind,  if what you wrote was true, then you won and they
lost. As for reading the post's.. I have read all of them, and as a
matter of fact I have hard copies of everything

|>It depends upon your definition of "lose" and "win".  In a legal sense, I
|>did not lose, and in a legal sense, I did not win.  However, in a realistic
|>sense, I lost.  In a m{*filter*}sense, we all lost.  But, then again, if you
|>would bother to read the posts, you would have already been able to figure
|>all of this out.

Alan I have no idea if " Mother Teresa"  (whoever that is) is a
licensed Dentist or not, perhaps you should call 1-888-MEDI-NET and
find out what her status is before you accept her help. As for the
"huge payola" that Dental Experts charge, well all I can say is you
get what you pay for and the same goes with the dental care you
received. Expert Witness Testimony in my area is around 1000.00 an
hour and I know because I have employed and paid them several times.
|>I'll tell you what, "Bruce".  I will refile the complaint, but only on the
|>condition that you pay the $5,000-$10,000 in attorney fees, not to mention
|>the huge payola dentists want for their expert reports and testimony.  You
|>know how honest, kind, generous and caring all dentists are, right "Bruce".
|> Surely, they would do this for me at no charge.  Mother Teresa is a
|>dentist.  Right?  

Thats good news to hear Alan. Do you think my OMFS is participating in
this Dog and Pony Show??
|>As a matter of fact, this morning I received a very kind e-mail from a
|>dentist who regularly posts in this newsgroup.  In short, he agreed with
|>me.  For different reasons, incompetence runs rampant inside *and* outside
|>of dental schools.  And, from the patient's perspective, there is no way to
|>ascertain the skills of the dentist, other than possibly asking friends and
|>family for referrals.  But, you don't see his post in this newsgroup.  Why
|>is that, do you think?  

I fully understand this Alan. Your forgetting something here, I have
been down your road but in a far worse way then you and I am not
trying to lesson your suffering at all, your forgetting I am an allie
not an enemy. You had a procedure done by an incompetent Dental
Student & Faculty and "I"  know it and "YOU"  know it and "THEY" know
it. I can tell you Alan I have paid Experts for testimony and I know
exactly how much they charge and I know for a fact there are Defense
Hired Guns ({*filter*}s) that will say and do anything the Malpractice
Insurance carrier wants them to say. Hiring a  Expert Witness  is
easy, getting  the best is another story,  you must research them by
way of the courts,  you must be willing to go to the courthouse in
their judicial district and see how many cases they have testified on
and what the testimony was as well as the outcome before deciding on
letting anyone say anything on your behalf, just because some legal
beagle tells you someone is an expert should not be enough to convince
you to trust and pay them, if your the one footing the bill you should
be the one making the decision, again you get what you pay for. There
is quite a bit more to it then even what I have stated but I trust you
get the idea. I could go on and on about this but it's not necessary.
|>I'll answer that question.  No matter how sincere the individual, which
|>this person very obviously is, it is the same reason dentists do not
|>testify against other dentists.  Nobody is going to stick their neck out in
|>front of their peers without *substantial* financial incentive.  And even
|>then, most still won't do it.  At least if they plan on working in the same
|>town after the trial is over.  And even in a totally faceless, impersonal
|>environment such as the Internet, few people will risk it.  So you can
|>imagine the enormous difficulties a patient encounters finding one in
|>reality, much less virtual reality.

Again Alan I will tell you that I know all about this, your not
telling me anything I have not already done and PAID FOR!!!
|>Bottom line:  Patients are ALWAYS at a substantial disadvantage.  If you
|>get burned, it's likely you'll stay burned.  Lawyers don't take cases on a
|>contingency unless they know that there is an attractive chunk of cash at
|>the end of the rainbow.  And even in contingency cases, the client is
|>responsible for an exorbitant sum of expenses, such as filing fees,
|>discovery, depositions, expert reports, expert witnesses, copies, phone
|>charges, travel expenses, ad nauseum.  Not to mention additional dental
|>fees incurred attempting to repair the damage caused by the original
|>dentist(s).

Your absolutely right.!!!
|>Dentists carry malpractice insurance.  Patients do not carry "victim of
|>malpractice" insurance.  

This is one thing I have no knowledge about, sorry to say but it's
true. I do however sympathize.
|>You see, Ohio State University does not settle cases.  You cannot sue the
|>dentist(s), you cannot sue the dental student(s), you can only sue the
|>State.  The bureaucrats/doctors at the dental school merely refer the cases
|>to the office of the Ohio Attorney General, which in turn farms them out to
|>lawyers on contract with the State.  Then, the lawyers are given unofficial
|>carte blanche to pad the billable hours as they see fit.  No reason to
|>settle.  It's only taxpayer money, so who cares?  Not a bad deal.  Except
|>for the plaintiffs/victims.

Of course I am outraged and sickened Alan, your  forgetting that
myself and others here are  "VITEK/PROPLAST VICTIM////SURVIVOR's" of
the "CHARLES ALBERT HOMSY DISEASE" and your also forgetting that there
are a lot of patient advocates right here in this group that care
about everything that has happened to you.
|>In fact, when I attempted to negotiate with the lawyer, I stated that all I
|>wanted was the tooth repaired.  That's all.  No money, just repair the
|>tooth they destroyed.  They refused to do so.  In essence, they would
|>rather have cost the taxpayers a huge sum of money rather than simply
|>repairing what they broke.  If you are not outraged and sickened by the
|>disgusting conduct of this particular lawyer, aided and abetted by the
|>outrageous and disgusting conduct of this particular bureaucrat/doctor,
|>then I feel sorry for you.  Not just for you, but for anybody.  Because
|>that says you care much more about $$$ than about actual patient care.

Look Alan, I have paid for my Legal and Medical expenses out of my own
pocket, Im not here to rescue you. You will have to rescue yourself
like all the rest of us. I sympathize but cannot be responsible for
you. Tell me one thing Alan? Who do you think Vitek Inc. Is? Have you
read anything we have written about Vitek Inc.? If you had you would
know they have been bankrupt for many years, you would know Homsy is
in Switzerland and Kent is still teaching at LSU and Certain UnNamed
Judges ( There next on the FOIA List) have ruled that VITEK Board
Members had no Fiduciary Obligations...well you know someone put some
$$$ in that Judges Offshore Account dont you????
|>But now, I guess it won't matter.  "Bruce" to the rescue.  Or to the
|>Batcave, as it were.  I'd prefer the $20,000 to cover my expenses in the
|>form of a certified check, if it would not be too much trouble.  Or maybe
|>you can arrange for Vitek to foot the bill.
Thanx....
|>Well, there it is, "Bruce".  You asked, and I believe in giving detailed
|>responses.  I hope you won your bet.
|>
|>Alan Tucker
Regards,
Bruce Chang



Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

Just one observation:

If your claim that "a small amalgam filling was butchered to the point
that needed a crown"  is correct, then I can not believe that OSU
would not try to fix things and get you a crown for free. I have a few
dentist friends that went to different schools, and they'll all tell
you that their school would do anything to correct the mistake of a
student. The school I went to also followed the same philosophy.
It's just courteous to do so.

However, I believe that we still do not know the whole story. To me it
does not make any sense not to fix a mistake for free. In private
practice, patients do not pay for remakes of a crown or redoing a
filling. Are you sure the "small amalgam filling" was not undermined
with extensive decay?

I still believe that by going to a dental school and being worked on
by a student, you are accepting certain risks. Even in that case, they
should pay for a mistake. I would love to see the pre-op x-ray.
The only way I can see they would refuse to fix this tooth for free is
that after excavation of decay the tooth needed a crown. In this case
YOU are responsible for it.

YDFW

PS  If you are interested in our opinion, try posting the pre-op x-ray
in this NG. You can have it digitized in numerous ways.



Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

On Jun 30, 1996 17:26:21 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:

>Just one observation:

>If your claim that "a small amalgam filling was butchered to the point
>that needed a crown"  is correct, then I can not believe that OSU
>would not try to fix things and get you a crown for free. I have a few
>dentist friends that went to different schools, and they'll all tell
>you that their school would do anything to correct the mistake of a
>student. The school I went to also followed the same philosophy.
>It's just courteous to do so.

BINGO!  Right on the money, "YDFW".  Believe it, because every word is
true.  

Alan Tucker



Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

On Jun 30, 1996 17:26:21 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:

>I would love to see the pre-op x-ray.
>The only way I can see they would refuse to fix this tooth for free is
>that after excavation of decay the tooth needed a crown. In this case
>YOU are responsible for it

Hey, no problem.  If you want to see the pre-op x-ray, you got it.  And if
I send it to you, and it shows that every word I have been saying is true,
does this mean you will reimburse me for what they put me through?  You
seem awfully sure of yourself.

Alan Tucker



Thu, 17 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

SUBJECT: Re: Multiple single-subject posts
Mr. Tucker, I am curious.   Why did you have the perception that this
restoration was going to be a simple small amalgam?  Was this the
diagnosis from the student working with you, the instructor?  If you do
post a a scan of your preoperative film it will need to be a high quality
one.  Exposure information and film type would be helpful also.  Newer
high speed films can be difficult to interpet due to varying contrast and
density (which show the extent of underlying caries).

BTW Bruce - Mother Teresa isn't a dentist.  Not much outside reading
these days I guess.  

DH



Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

On Jul 01, 1996 11:41:09 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:

>SUBJECT: Re: Multiple single-subject posts  
>Mr. Tucker, I am curious.   Why did you have the perception that this  
>restoration was going to be a simple small amalgam?  Was this the  
>diagnosis from the student working with you, the instructor?  

Both.

Alan Tucker



Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

Dear Alan and Bruce:

In todays legal system you could get any jury to believe anything you have to say if you come off as
the injured.  Give me a break with all the Hired Gun garbage.  They are on both sides.  If someone can
sue McDonalds for a million dollars because they spilt coffee on themself then you could get someone
to listen to you if you feel you have been wrongfully injured. Juries are just falling all over
themselves to give someone's money away "deep pockets" and there are a million attorneys out there
just waiting for the opportunity.



Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

Quote:

> On Jun 30, 1996 17:26:21 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

> >I would love to see the pre-op x-ray.
> >The only way I can see they would refuse to fix this tooth for free is
> >that after excavation of decay the tooth needed a crown. In this case
> >YOU are responsible for it

> Hey, no problem.  If you want to see the pre-op x-ray, you got it.  And if
> I send it to you, and it shows that every word I have been saying is true,
> does this mean you will reimburse me for what they put me through?  You
> seem awfully sure of yourself.

> Alan Tucker

Alan,

YDFW seems awfully sure of himself because he is as sure as I am that you are either exaggerating to
make a point or are confused as to what really happend.  We read so many things on here that are so
hard to believe. I just responded to a posting that mentioned that a friend's teeth fell out while
eating an apple after going through orthodontic treatment.  RIGHT.   So many people on this newsgroup
post whatever they need to post to make their point in order to bash the dentist that we have become
somewhat defensive, especially when the story is hard to swallow.

I graduated from a dental school that would never have put a patient through what you have stated.  No
reason for a cover up because the patients signed a release before being treated by a student.  The
instructor could stand in your mouth observing the student's every move but could not stop a student
from applying a little to much pressure with the handpiece resulting in an exposure.  

If the lesion is small then even a pulp exposure can be resolved without the need for a root canal.  I
have a hard time believing that your little, insignificant incipient lesion turned into a large
inappropriately prepared cavern requiring a crown.  There must have been decay that was undetected on
your x-ray.  The student would have to have fallen asleep with the handpiece running to remove a
grossly excessive amount of tooth structure resulting in the need for a crown.

You seem like a resonable guy.  If you are so sure that you have a case why haven't you taken it to a
higher authority.  Deal with it and get it resolved.  We are not dealing with the Kennedy Assasination
here.  Someone at the school will listen to you and if not take it further and have it reviewed.  Stop
making issue here where no one can resolve your problem.

Mark Lively



Fri, 18 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

Quote:
Mark Lively writes:

  The
Quote:
> instructor could stand in your mouth observing the student's every

move ....

Hell now thats a good trick!,

I bet HGrantJr has tried it!

Cheers
Ali



Sat, 19 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

On Jul 01, 1996 20:41:36 in article <Re: Multiple single-subject posts>,

Quote:

>Dear Alan and Bruce:

>In todays legal system you could get any jury to believe anything you have
to  
>say if you come off as the injured.  Give me a break with all the Hired

Gun garbage.  They are on both  
Quote:
>sides.  If someone can sue McDonalds for a million dollars because they

spilt coffee on themself then  
Quote:
>you could get someone to listen to you if you feel you have been

wrongfully injured. Juries are just  
Quote:
>falling all over themselves to give someone's money away "deep pockets"

and there are a million  

Quote:
>attorneys out there just waiting for the opportunity.

Mark,

Yeah, right.  You apparently know as little about the legal system in Ohio
as you do about the specifics of the incidents.  I can't speak for "Bruce",
but as amazing as it sounds, EVERY word I have written is ABSOLUTELY true.

That nugget of truth aside, since the Ohio State University is a
state-supported school, there are no juries.  All lawsuits filed against
the State are filed in a court known as the Ohio Court of Claims.  A
retired judge hears it.  And, there is a different set of court rules.

Not only that, there are HUGE expenses for which one is not reimbursed, and
is an extremely important consideration in any lawsuit.  Unless, of course,
you happen to be a dentist with malpractice insurance (gee Mark, that
wouldn't be you, would it?), or the State of Ohio and their lawyers, which
habitually burn the taxpayers' money without any consideration for expense.

Lastly, if you know an attorney that would take my case for as little as he
or she would recoup relative to the amount of time expended, and would
further pay the many thousands of dollars required for expenses out of his
or her own pocket, you have my e-mail address.  Use it.  Because if you
don't, you're full of hot air.

Alan Tucker



Sun, 20 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 Multiple single-subject posts

I am so sick of your whining that I suggest we all donate some money
so you can sue OSU. Would that make you go away? :-)

Hey, get on with your life. Just because a student dentist might have
made a mistake, it does not give you the right to come here and bad
mouth all dentists. Once again, YOU are the one who decided to go to a
dental school in the first place. So, grow up and get on with it.

YDFW



Sun, 20 Dec 1998 03:00:00 GMT
 
 [ 17 post ]  Go to page: [1] [2]

 Relevant Pages 

1. oris's defendant rushs subject to our single after we sweep subject to it

2. Hot News About singles. singles,fitness singles,lds singles,russian singles,singles vacations

3. Wow, Michael Roose posts 25 posts in a single day to a.s.d.lc

4. A Single Antibody to Treat Multiple Cancers?

5. hospital subject to single shed

6. Why Multiple threads of the same subject?

7. Appology for multiple post

8. Apology for multiple posts

9. Multiple Posting Question

10. Sorry for multiple posts; newsreader problem

11. apologies for multiple posts

12. Hep B and interferon multiple posts


 
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software