Re: Walter L - ANGELA

[Guest guest]

wrote:

> Now too correct a few things.....

>

> Not to beg the obvious, , but the only times you have posted

> have been to support Walter and bash the MGB. You and a couple of other

> names only pop up when Walter does. The other names have aol

> addresses (where a person gets 8 alias name email addresses) and hotmail

> addresses (where unlimited email addresses are free). I notice your service

> provider is in Mississippi. Are you, Laurie and her bile husband

> " friends " ?

>

> 1.I have posted numerous times about different things, mainly about

> insurance " which no one othered to answer or offer advice, but I was

> not

In two months, you have posted 12 messages, six messages defending

Walter, and 6 one-liner messages that were not defending Walter, and

none of which had anything to do with insurance. If you care to

actually check this yourself, you can do so by putting your email

address in the " search archive " feature at egroups.com.

Here is a list of your 12 posts. I have put an x next to the five posts

defending Walter:

x 38135 Re: Walter L Mon Jul 24, 2000 9:55pm

x 38136 Not sure what happened........ Mon Jul 24, 2000 10:09pm

x 38135 Re: Walter L Mon Jul 24, 2000 9:55pm

The post to which this is a response.

x 38070 Re: Walter L Mon Jul 24, 2000 5:53pm

You said (to Walter): " I would like to know who " informed " you

of this!! Nothing against , she has done nothing to me,

but I am not represented by her.

" I am working on insurance approval now and should the time come

that I am denied, I will be seeking your help, simply because I

believe YOU have the background expertise in these cases. And

before anyone reminds me that Mr Lindstrom does not represent MGB

cases, I am not sure this is the procedure I will be going for. I

am still researching. (who enjoys EVERYONE on this list) "

37818 Re: obsessed? Sat Jul 22, 2000 11:37pm

37066 New PreOp Medications Tue Jul 18, 2000 7:32pm

x 35644 Re: At the risk of getting flamed.... Tue Jul 11, 2000

7:42pm

You said: " I think more than just Mr. Lindstrom is keeping this

going. It

is a combination of people who all mean well. Lets get back to

talking

about the " MGB " Instead of bickering back and forth, lets get back to

how everyone is doing and who is still trying to get approved. I for

one love to read how everyone is getting along after surgery. This is

getting out of hand. My 2 cents worth from Mississippi. "

x 35643 Re: At the risk of getting flamed.... Tue Jul 11, 2000 7:36pm

You said: " I totally agree!!!!! I was at the conference in Memphis

and spoke with many Dr's there about the different procedures. I

thought the MGB was 100% the surgery for me, now I am doing more

research before I decide and talking to more post -ops. "

35366 Re: Post-Op Group Sun Jul 9, 2000 1:57pm

35354 Re: Post-Op Group Sun Jul 9, 2000 11:44am

35266 Re: psych evaluation/Sara Sat Jul 8, 2000 1:07pm

33586 To Thu Jun 22, 2000 9:25pm

> Only once before have I posted anything about Walter.

Please see above. You have posted six times about Walter. Nothing

wrong with that, you are certainly entitled to your opinions, but don't

try to play Ms. Innocent when called to task for continuing to inflame

the situation or claim you were " only writing about insurance " when none

of your posts were about insurance or claim that you only wrote about

Walter " once. "

> I, as far as I know, am the only person other than DW that is from Ms. I do

not even know who

> Laurie and her husband are. I have, however,noticed that anyone who dos not

agree

> with you, you get paranoid about. You question their motives. Can you not

> concieve the idea that not everyone agrees with you?

The only time I question motives are when people write something

attacking the procedure and not backing it up with any facts. And in

your case, I'll make a special exception, since you have come in here

repeatedly to do nothing but defend Walter after he has made unsupported

attacks, and fan the flames with " I agree!!! " comments, with no reasons

or supporting facts, and backhanded innuendo about how you were at the

conference and Walter is 100% right (in his gossip and rumor mongering).

> You said in your previous post that you were at the ASBS conference,

> when you first posted here, supporting Walter after he badmouthed the

> MGB and said he would not represent any MGB patients. The ASBS

> conference was attended by bariatric surgeons and some of their staffs

> and Walter, apparently. You never did answer the question about how

> you came to be at the ASBS conference, by the way.

>

> 2.If you actually go back and look at the post. I let the entire list

> know that from ObesityHelp.com contacted me, knowing I am not far from

> Memphis, and ask me to help out the conference. Which I did, and that is

> how I came to be at the conference.

I did actually go back and look. I have listed *all* your posts,

above. You were specifically asked how you came to be at the

conference.

The only time you mentioned the ASBS conference was when you jumped in

to back up Walter's claims that the MGB was " bad " and you can see for

yourself what you had to say:

x 35643 Re: At the risk of getting flamed.... Tue Jul 11, 2000

7:36pm

You said: " I totally agree!!!!! I was at the conference in Memphis

and spoke with many Dr's there about the different procedures. I

thought the MGB was 100% the surgery for me, now I am doing more

research before I decide and talking to more post -ops. "

> 2.If you actually go back and look at the post. I let the entire list

> know that from ObesityHelp.com contacted me, knowing I am not far from

> Memphis, and ask me to help out the conference. Which I did, and that is

> how I came to be at the conference.

You never mentioned that " from ObesityHelp.com " asked you to help

out at the conference, period. Additionally, that conference cost

several hundred dollars for attendees, and the last time I looked,

Mississippi wasn't close to Memphis, either.

> 3.I have never sniped at you. I thought the argueing was totally

> uncalled for and everyone continued to say " lets end it " but no.....no matter

> what was said, someone had a comeback for everything. Some still do.

Post 35653, quoted above, was in direct support of a previous sniping

post. Your posts today were likewise sniping, particularly since you

had to fudge so many of your " facts " to disagree with me. (SEE ABOVE).

> I have never said I represent " the list " and if you had read the

> *private* email I sent to Walter, which he attached to his lie

> claiming I said I represented the list, you'd see that. But of course, you'd

> have to be looking.

>

> 4.I never said you did, I simply asked " who " imformed him of this. You

> are the one who is on the defensive.

You went on to make yourself quite clear (See above.) I don't think

there's much opportunity to miss the purpose of the post and since your

" choice " follows on the heels of your backing up Walter's wholly

unsupported post that claimed the MGB was " bad " and provided NOT ONE

FACT in support of this claim, and when *many* people have posted facts,

figures, charts, graphs, and studies proving Walter wrong, at the very

best, one has to wonder that if you still think it is so " bad " that you

are still saying even today " I may not have the MGB, " then you can't be

doing as much research as you claim, you can't have read any of the

research posted by others, so it certainly raises the question, " Why are

you *really* here? " Then when your posts are examined, the answer seems

pretty obvious.

> As for the rest of your statements, those are between you and Walter.

> I do hope they stay private between the two of you.

>

> (who is reaching for the same goal as everyone else on this

> list)

> 5'3 " 240

> BMI 41.6

Then maybe you might want to (1) Get your facts straight; (2) put your

comments to Walter privately; and (3) keep your comments about me to

yourself. Thanks.