Off Topic

[clsykes00]

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
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

[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

[clsykes00]

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

[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

[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

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

[clsykes00]

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

[Peter]

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.php?title=Banned%2C_Banned%2C_Banned


Best wishes

Peter

[clsykes00]

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

[redhotoz]

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

[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!

[Peter]

Dear Trey

Well surprisingly you must be one of the few people who appears to have never followed the Red Light Controversy. I have made it very easy for you so just put your cursor on the links and read away and come to your own conclusions. The subject has been talked to death (we have actually discussed it together in previous threads) and most people have now moved on from this as it does become very repetitive.

Happy reading :)

Best wishes

Peter

[clsykes00]

Dear Trey

Well surprisingly you must be one of the few people who appears to have never followed the Red Light Controversy. I have made it very easy for you so just put your cursor on the links and read away and come to your own conclusions. The subject has been talked to death (we have actually discussed it together in previous threads) and most people have now moved on from this as it does become very repetitive.

Happy reading :)

Best wishes

Peter

Not really sure I see his motivations in those links. Nor am I really seeing Dr Peter Crouch's motivations in those links.

Shouldn't be surprising that I didn't follow given the length of useless posts by all involved, including Peter (you), IowaDavid, Red, and Dr Nase.

Back to RLT: what scientifically is the mechanism by which RLT improves rosacea symptoms?

[clsykes00]

started back when Peter caught Nase out on a lie about his qualifications.

This seemed to occur AFTER both Dr Nase and Dr Crouch denounced the effectiveness of RLT.

[redhotoz]

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.
You know what Trey, I wasn't going to post this but now I feel that I should. This is really becoming quite tiresome.

I am surprised you mentioned your PMs to me. I did my best to address your issues in reply to the first PM you sent me, when one of your posts was removed. I decided to sleep on how to reply to the further 4 PMs you sent to me, one after the other. I took my time to consider the best way to reply.

Why did I address my previous post in this thread to you? Well, perhaps you should re-read the last sentence of the fifth PM you sent me. I am not going to bring this into the public arena. It would be to your detriment.

Now, I could have taken this to PM but the way I see it right now is that you are the one stirring the pot. Why? Ok, let’s get simple about this and start from the beginning…

A new thread was started by Peter about a clinical trial on red light therapy. It’s very obvious that you don’t like Peter but you chose to post about how difficult it would be to do this trial. Yes, that is a negative outlook and there are just as many difficulties in trials for anything else. All the same, I replied to your first post in this thread in a positive way, even though I did notice your dig about diet. I chose to overlook that.

Peter also replied to your first post in this thread saying that he felt your post was "somewhat negative" and that we should be grateful that a trial will be undertaken. Your response was personal, stating that Peter had twisted your words around. Perhaps you should re-read what was written as this was not the case.

Peter replied to your next post to say that he felt that he knew what you were insinuating and your reply was to state that Peter has the intention of wanting to change peoples’ opinions and how people write and interact. Sorry, but this is plainly silly! You contradict yourself with the statement “I will refrain from falling to that level.”

Peter’s response was direct with an annoyed tone thrown in, as you were the one who started and have continued down this path. Your reply was to accuse him of defamation and badgering those who disagree with him. Clearly, this is not the case!

TP and James called for a truce but you still continued, this time on David. You have claimed to be an intelligent woman and I would have thought that you would have known the amount of research David has done on red light therapy from previous posts. Your question about a commercial unit vs a home made unit was not worth the effort of replying but David did reply, none the less. Again you had a go at him.

Then to add icing to the cake, you bring in the subject of Dr Nase! Aggghhh!!! We all know that this is a touchy subject and this again shows that you are in this thread to create trouble! You know the deal and have read the posts from the past so why create more havoc?

I don’t often bother to spend this much time analysing a thread but enough is enough Trey!!! Perhaps you are the one who should take the time to re-read the posts and since you obviously have a major issue with Peter, maybe even David and myself too, I suggest you take it up in PM now! Enough!

If you truly want to know about red light therapy, then buy or make a unit yourself and come to your own conclusions. Or you can wait for the outcome of the clinical trial. If you're not interested in red light therapy, then I suggest you focus your energy on something else!

Yup, Jen has had enough! ENOUGH!!! I try to be calm and caring but Trey you have taken me over the top! ENOUGH!!!

Jenny

[clsykes00]

Red,

This is my original post:

“To conduct this study properly will be a challenge in my opinion. The results of red light, from my reading, usually begin to show signs months after starting the therapy (call it 6 months which seems to be a mode of personal accounts from my readings) and peak call it in 2 years (taking Peter's estimates from his own experience). The difficulty will be two fold given the length of time for results and reaching peak results: 1) maintaining a meaninful control group that is willing to endure the pain of not experimenting with other forms of therapy, having to suffer for 6 months to 2 years while their rosacea progressions or maintains at its uncomfortable levels and 2) keeping the group using red light therapy from experimenting with other therapies (e.g. new diets that may alter someone's rosacea flushes, etc.) while using red light to ensure that red light is indeed the contributor to the results seen. As for me, I would not be patient enough to participate in either group, locking myself to one therapy over the course of a long period for the sake of scientific data. I think that is human nature in today's society.”

Please provide me where the error in logic is? Please tell me why this should not have been written? Please tell me why no contrary opinion should be posted here? Note there is nothing negative about Peter anywhere in my post.

This is Peter’s reply directed at me:

“With all due respect I find your post somewhat negative. We should be grateful that someone is prepared to arrange a trial which could ultimately help perhaps other rosacea sufferers who are looking for the right treatment to suit them.”

My response to Peter saying that he wrong to assume that I am not grateful and that I should be allowed to post, even if it means noting the difficulties of pulling off a trial.

“You may interpret my post as negative, however, I was only describing the challenge in doing such a study and the potential limitations behind it.

Maybe the reason you find it negative is because you yourself understand these limitations.

I did not however say that I was ungrateful or grateful for the proposed study. That was merely you twisting my thoughts through your own conjecture, something I find in my opinion in many of your responses back to me.”

I do not see anything untrue in this post and in fact his next post proves undeniably proves my only accusation about our history of responses:

“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".”

This is where the unfriendly, and truly problematic banter begins now as a result of specific accusations and continually trying to put words in mouth per usual.

You can follow the rest if you wish and read whatever you want. Its all here.

If you want to post my last PM to you, you would be doing a complete injustice anyway. You would be taking something out of context when my statement was meant to prove a point you obviously could not comprehend based on your last post.

I do have a couple ridiculous PMs from you that I will choose not to post as well.

[GJ]

Today I went for a 5 mile walk.
Today I went for a gruelling 5 mile hike.
Today I went for a 5 mile jaunt on foot.

FFS!

Neutral.








Negative.









Positive.








Powerful things, words.

[fanta]

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.
You know what Trey, I wasn't going to post this but now I feel that I should. This is really becoming quite tiresome.

I am surprised you mentioned your PMs to me. I did my best to address your issues in reply to the first PM you sent me, when one of your posts was removed. I decided to sleep on how to reply to the further 4 PMs you sent to me, one after the other. I took my time to consider the best way to reply.

Why did I address my previous post in this thread to you? Well, perhaps you should re-read the last sentence of the fifth PM you sent me. I am not going to bring this into the public arena. It would be to your detriment.

Now, I could have taken this to PM but the way I see it right now is that you are the one stirring the pot. Why? Ok, let’s get simple about this and start from the beginning…

A new thread was started by Peter about a clinical trial on red light therapy. It’s very obvious that you don’t like Peter but you chose to post about how difficult it would be to do this trial. Yes, that is a negative outlook and there are just as many difficulties in trials for anything else. All the same, I replied to your first post in this thread in a positive way, even though I did notice your dig about diet. I chose to overlook that.

Peter also replied to your first post in this thread saying that he felt your post was "somewhat negative" and that we should be grateful that a trial will be undertaken. Your response was personal, stating that Peter had twisted your words around. Perhaps you should re-read what was written as this was not the case.

Peter replied to your next post to say that he felt that he knew what you were insinuating and your reply was to state that Peter has the intention of wanting to change peoples’ opinions and how people write and interact. Sorry, but this is plainly silly! You contradict yourself with the statement “I will refrain from falling to that level.”

Peter’s response was direct with an annoyed tone thrown in, as you were the one who started and have continued down this path. Your reply was to accuse him of defamation and badgering those who disagree with him. Clearly, this is not the case!

TP and James called for a truce but you still continued, this time on David. You have claimed to be an intelligent woman and I would have thought that you would have known the amount of research David has done on red light therapy from previous posts. Your question about a commercial unit vs a home made unit was not worth the effort of replying but David did reply, none the less. Again you had a go at him.

Then to add icing to the cake, you bring in the subject of Dr Nase! Aggghhh!!! We all know that this is a touchy subject and this again shows that you are in this thread to create trouble! You know the deal and have read the posts from the past so why create more havoc?

I don’t often bother to spend this much time analysing a thread but enough is enough Trey!!! Perhaps you are the one who should take the time to re-read the posts and since you obviously have a major issue with Peter, maybe even David and myself too, I suggest you take it up in PM now! Enough!

If you truly want to know about red light therapy, then buy or make a unit yourself and come to your own conclusions. Or you can wait for the outcome of the clinical trial. If you're not interested in red light therapy, then I suggest you focus your energy on something else!

Yup, Jen has had enough! ENOUGH!!! I try to be calm and caring but Trey you have taken me over the top! ENOUGH!!!

Jenny
Jenny, you look like a beautiful young woman on that pic, so why bother about men that don't know how to treat women nicely? What is going on here? what are you all fighting for? I though Dr Nase, the Internet freak had left and there was finally peace and quiet but guess I was wrong.
Well, I always enjoy these forums cause there are lots of nice women on them...and with Nase gone there is no stress anylonger O:)

[Twickle Purple]

Hey, I knew what FFS meant :D

I need this forum. I need all of you. You are all so intelligent and knowledgeable and opinionated about things I am only beginning to wonder about. I have realized the main difference with this forum when compared to the other skin forum that I was part of is that this forum, by the very nature of the disease, is populated only by adults. So there's different language and communication styles -- and really pronounced personalities in some cases.

The big picture is so important here.

Peace. Love. Hope.

[fanta]

no need for hope when there is love.

peace,

fanta 8)

[Twickle Purple]

I'm feeling groovy...

Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
There's nothing you can do that can't be done.
Nothing you can sing that can't be sung.
Nothing you can say but you can learn how to play the game
It's easy.

There's nothing you can make that can't be made.
No one you can save that can't be saved.
Nothing you can do but you can learn how to be in time
It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
Love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love, love.
All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
There's nothing you can know that isn't known.
Nothing you can see that isn't shown.
Nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be.
It's easy.

All you need is love, all you need is love,
All you need is love, love, love is all you need.
All you need is love (all together now)
All you need is love (everybody)
All you need is love, love, love is all you need. :D

[fanta]

redcowboy
Joined: 09 May 2006
Posts: 17
Location: US

Posted: Thu Jul 13, 2006 11:43 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Hey girls i saw Micky Mouse is back to posting as FANTA over at the rosacea forum. what a trip.
they told me he wouldnt be able to resist being offline!!!!!!!!!
and now he's hitting on Jenny, the redhotoz girl.

some jealous guy on ESFB is trying to bring me out in trouble now :lol: (I'm afraid you are too late redcowboy #-o )

I better leave before I get into trouble. I was in no way trying to hit on Jenny =; .. cause I'm spoken for and I'm very very pleased 8)

so good bye again!

PS: I wonder why they reopened my account here again after I left from ESFB?

[IowaDavid]

Tete-a-tete;
Don't fret.

8)

[fanta]

what do you mean?

[Twickle Purple]

Ah, meanings.

Poetry is such that it is what we need it to be.

[fanta]

what do you mean?

[Twickle Purple]

I mean what I say. I say what I mean. \:D/

[fanta]

what do you mean?

[Peter]

Dear Trey

Well surprisingly you must be one of the few people who appears to have never followed the Red Light Controversy. I have made it very easy for you so just put your cursor on the links and read away and come to your own conclusions. The subject has been talked to death (we have actually discussed it together in previous threads) and most people have now moved on from this as it does become very repetitive.

Happy reading :)

Best wishes

Peter

Not really sure I see his motivations in those links. Nor am I really seeing Dr Peter Crouch's motivations in those links.

Shouldn't be surprising that I didn't follow given the length of useless posts by all involved, including Peter (you), IowaDavid, Red, and Dr Nase.

Back to RLT: what scientifically is the mechanism by which RLT improves rosacea symptoms?

Hello Trey

As you replied so quickly you must be a very quick reader to get through that lot and be able to formulate an accurate opinion? I would have said to be able to get a proper understanding of events and reasons behind those threads and posts it would take several hours . Of course you would also have had to carry out your research on the events around this time last year when certain posts on the Forum, once interrogated, were not quite as representative of the truth as first appeared. Without doing that, I suspect it would be extremely difficult to comment on what motivated who to do what, when confronted with another person's view.

You also appear completely oblivious to the so called Red Light Controversy which I find so strange given that various parts of this were discussed on a thread we were both on and where we exchanged posts ("I think Dr Nase is no longer able to help us?")

As for "useless posts", they were honest, genuine posts from three people asking questions from the instigator of both threads in an attempt to discover the real truth.

Anyway I will leave you to get up to speed if you are still interested? However please remember again we managed to successfully sort this particular episode out and the majority of us now want to move forward.

Regards

Peter

[redhotoz]

Trey

I do believe that the general consensus is for peace, however, I will address your questions/statements.

You asked: “Can I ask an honest question…what do you honestly think Dr Nase's motivations are in denouncing the empirical evidence of RLT?”

I replied to your question with an honest answer “...it started back when Peter caught Nase out on a lie about his qualifications…” and your response was: “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.”

So, I am not so sure you truly wanted an honest answer or perhaps you do not believe what I wrote? Did you actually read and take the time to analyse the content of the links provided? It’s all there.

You stated: “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.”

I believe it is pertinent to understand the history of events Trey and I am surprised you are not ‘in the know’ of the so-called “Red Light Controversy”. Again, if you read through the links provided, this will shed light.

You queried: “This seemed to occur AFTER both Dr Nase and Dr Crouch denounced the effectiveness of RLT.”

Ahhhh, Trey, don’t you get it??? The thread that Nase started “LLT and LED-induced 1st degree burns and flushing” was Nase’s attempt at discrediting Peter! Peter had only just started to post again on the Forum. When Nase was unable to provide any evidence in that thread, after repeated requests, he started a new thread “Last Post on Topic & then Rosacea Sufferers Make up Mind”. In the latter thread Nase made it perfectly clear what his intentions were with his opening statement “David and Peter have gone to great lengths to make the LED and LLT systems work for rosacea.” So now David was dragged in as a target too. Nase’s ‘evidence’ was quoting from a web site about the use of LASERS on horses!!!! Please!!! Did you really spend the almost 4 hours between posts reading and comprehending everything???

You wrote: “Please provide me where the error in logic is? [in reference to your first post in the “Red Light Clinical Trial at Hammersmith Hospital” thread] Please tell me why this should not have been written? Please tell me why no contrary opinion should be posted here? Note there is nothing negative about Peter anywhere in my post.”

You may want to play the innocent victim in this Trey but it is very obvious that you dislike Peter - with a passion – and posting negative comments on the “Red Light Clinical Trial...” thread (especially given the history of your dislike for Peter) was simply bait. You dangled it and it was taken up. Yes, everyone is entitled to an opinion and I personally chose to overlook the bait you laid for me but since you continued, I took the bait. Admittedly, I have had more control with others who have laid bait for me in this Forum. I am but human and can only take so much before giving back what I receive. I also believe strongly in the TRUTH being known and defending those who are targets. Believe it or not Trey, I did you a favour not long ago by removing one of your posts (against Forum Policies)! Making a statement against another person without proof to back it up is dangerous stuff! I would do the same for any other member of this Forum if a slanderous (libel) statement was made.

You wrote: “If you want to post my last PM to you, you would be doing a complete injustice anyway. You would be taking something out of context when my statement was meant to prove a point you obviously could not comprehend based on your last post.

I do have a couple ridiculous PMs from you that I will choose not to post as well.”

I would never post the content of a PM in the public arena. Private Messages are just that – private! However, you have access to the PMs I sent you in reply and I was simply reminding you of what you sent to me.

If you believe that logic, truth and honesty are “ridiculous” then I am not really sure what else I can say.

Just aside, in the “Red Light Clinical Trial…” thread, I spent the time to reply to your question about the “mechanism by which RLT improves rosacea (i.e. if anti-inflamatory is the answer, what is the reason for the anti-inflamatory action)?” I hope you find that information helpful. I have more if you want to know more.

Jenny

[Mats]

Peter
You are doing it again!

And you think (you never stop telling us) Nase having problems look at yourself you never stop hassle anyone how giving you any sort of problems I think you should get some help!
Please don’t tell me I am an idiot and that I don’t know the full story I have been around for a longer time than you think “and years later you still at it” Your personality stinks.
I do really think that you have some mental problems get some help please and give people with a different view have their say! With out you hassle the.

My suggestion is allow Peter to write in LED threads only as he can’t control himself.
Ok moderators “I know” now you gonna tell me that’s its me that’s wrong so ban me if you want it doesn’t worry me but I think you looking at the wrong guy.
Jenny saying ENOUGH to the wrong person I think.
GHC you telling me I don't know anything about the situation and to stay out of it also you point out that I don’t do anything. “When was the last time that you brought something that was helpful?”
Sorry I didn’t know it was a rule to write all the time even if it’s some people’s idea of fun.

My two bob

[redhotoz]

Mats

Just as well this is the "Off Topic" thread, huh! Let it all out! If someone decides to report a post then I will leave it up to the other Mods to deal with.

Do you REALLY know ther TRUTH Mats?????????????????????

[Twickle Purple]

Dear Matts (and Trey too),

I read posts well into the past to get a sense of this site. I'm aware, as much as possible with what is still in the public domain, of what occurred and who was involved. I will say again that I admire Peter for his perseverence and I am beyond glad that he hasn't just washed his hands of this all. It would certainly be a lot easier for him, I'm sure, given the abuse he suffers. Any defensiveness he exhibits is well learned. His efforts and his tenacity will benefit us ALL. You, me, him.

It seems that you cannot resist attacking Peter in your posts. In another thread, started by a new poster, you had to bring him up just to disparage him before giving him his due for being onto something with this RLT.

I am in awe of RedHotOz for the incredible energy and stamina with which she has worked to answer your questions and stay reasonable with both you and Trey. You are in the company of focussed individuals who have a greater goal in mind than to prolong personal squabbles. Kudos to them for not backing down from the assaults. I feel exhausted for them.

Can you please just give it a rest. I'm here to learn and I want to keep reading your posts. I have enough stress dealing with this affliction, I come here looking for help, advice, and encouragement or to offer some of my own. If you feel offended, please turn the other cheek and motor through with the topic at hand. It will keep the level of discourse up and the personal interactions light. I am amazed at the combined knowledge of the members of this forum.

Peace. Love. Hope.

Most sincerely,
Twickle Purple.

[Peter]

Peter
You are doing it again!

And you think (you never stop telling us) Nase having problems look at yourself you never stop hassle anyone how giving you any sort of problems I think you should get some help!
Please don’t tell me I am an idiot and that I don’t know the full story I have been around for a longer time than you think “and years later you still at it” Your personality stinks.
I do really think that you have some mental problems get some help please and give people with a different view have their say! With out you hassle the.

My suggestion is allow Peter to write in LED threads only as he can’t control himself.
Ok moderators “I know” now you gonna tell me that’s its me that’s wrong so ban me if you want it doesn’t worry me but I think you looking at the wrong guy.
Jenny saying ENOUGH to the wrong person I think.
GHC you telling me I don't know anything about the situation and to stay out of it also you point out that I don’t do anything. “When was the last time that you brought something that was helpful?”
Sorry I didn’t know it was a rule to write all the time even if it’s some people’s idea of fun.

My two bob

Hello Mats

Isn't it way past your bedtime ?

What am I doing again? Here I am in an off-topic section of the Forum, answering questions and discussing a particular subject which has nothing to do with you and "Hey Presto" you appear with your usual insults. Look Mats nobody is forcing you to read anything on this thread and if you don't like what's written, especially as you are not involved, then go away and annoy someone else and enhance their thread with your words of wisdom. You remind me of these idiots who say how bad or rude a TV programme is but rather then switch the channels over they would rather carry on saying how terrible it is !!

To be honest there is no real reason for me to reply to you because your post says it all about you and I would imagine the majority of people who read it will share my view. Ironic because I was in the process of writing to you in the "Newbie seeking help" thread and to thank you for mentioning red light treatment and then to see if I could help you. Well forget it and that's a draft message for the waste paper bin.

RHC (Red Hot Canuck) did give you some good advice but it appears you are incapable of understanding it? He is a good guy and someone I really have respect for because of his no nonsense approach and for the amount of work he does on this Forum keeping it running properly despite people like you. Listen to him, because Mats despite what you think you really do not know everything about the history of the last year.

Peter

[Penguin]

I'm still trying to figure out how anybody could possibly have got "burned" from these red lights, I mean I've got Christmas tree lights that throw off more heat than this lamp. There were some posts a while back of somebody going to Dr. Crouch with "burns" from the red lamp, I still wonder if they (including Dr. Crouch) were getting the red lights mixed up with those old red sun/heat lamps that were popular for home tanning which could definitely burn you. As far as it goes for me, I haven't been using the lamp for all that long but I certainly haven't had any bad reaction to it.

Penguin

[RedHotCanuck]

An easy situation is to just ignore poor fellow Mats. I'm not going to waste anymore of my time responding to his ridiculous posts from now on.

Its unfortunate that he doesn't know the whole story ..

So anyways, Mats, have a blast.. go ahead and spout off your mouth because ya know what? No one cares about you .. byebye

RHC

[Mats]

[-X
:^o

[clsykes00]

Dear Trey

Well surprisingly you must be one of the few people who appears to have never followed the Red Light Controversy. I have made it very easy for you so just put your cursor on the links and read away and come to your own conclusions. The subject has been talked to death (we have actually discussed it together in previous threads) and most people have now moved on from this as it does become very repetitive.

Happy reading :)

Best wishes

Peter

Not really sure I see his motivations in those links. Nor am I really seeing Dr Peter Crouch's motivations in those links.

Shouldn't be surprising that I didn't follow given the length of useless posts by all involved, including Peter (you), IowaDavid, Red, and Dr Nase.

Back to RLT: what scientifically is the mechanism by which RLT improves rosacea symptoms?

Hello Trey

As you replied so quickly you must be a very quick reader to get through that lot and be able to formulate an accurate opinion? I would have said to be able to get a proper understanding of events and reasons behind those threads and posts it would take several hours . Of course you would also have had to carry out your research on the events around this time last year when certain posts on the Forum, once interrogated, were not quite as representative of the truth as first appeared. Without doing that, I suspect it would be extremely difficult to comment on what motivated who to do what, when confronted with another person's view.

You also appear completely oblivious to the so called Red Light Controversy which I find so strange given that various parts of this were discussed on a thread we were both on and where we exchanged posts ("I think Dr Nase is no longer able to help us?")

As for "useless posts", they were honest, genuine posts from three people asking questions from the instigator of both threads in an attempt to discover the real truth.

Anyway I will leave you to get up to speed if you are still interested? However please remember again we managed to successfully sort this particular episode out and the majority of us now want to move forward.

Regards

Peter

You are so pleasant Peter. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Peter it's everybody else you argue with, not you.

[clsykes00]

Trey

I do believe that the general consensus is for peace


Ahhhh, Trey, don’t you get it??? Please!!! Did you really spend the almost 4 hours between posts reading and comprehending everything???


You may want to play the innocent victim in this Trey but it is very obvious that you dislike Peter - with a passion – and posting negative comments on the “Red Light Clinical Trial...” thread (especially given the history of your dislike for Peter) was simply bait. You dangled it and it was taken up.

Illogical statements.

[redhotoz]

I'm still trying to figure out how anybody could possibly have got "burned" from these red lights, I mean I've got Christmas tree lights that throw off more heat than this lamp. There were some posts a while back of somebody going to Dr. Crouch with "burns" from the red lamp, I still wonder if they (including Dr. Crouch) were getting the red lights mixed up with those old red sun/heat lamps that were popular for home tanning which could definitely burn you. As far as it goes for me, I haven't been using the lamp for all that long but I certainly haven't had any bad reaction to it.

Penguin
Hi Penguin

Yes, it is highly possible that the red lights that were spoken of a while back were mixed up with something else. Dr Crouch did not know what was used by the apparent burn victims and has stated as such. Dr Nase did not see the burns in question and also did not know what device was used but still he chose to report about it to all of us Rosaceans. Dr Nase also provided evidence against low level red light therapy by quoting from a horse web site about the use of LASERS!!! Hardly a fair or convincing argument against the use of low level red light therapy, is it?!

Anyway, please do let us know how things go with your red lamp as time progesses. Maybe you could start a new thread with your findings.

Jen

[redhotoz]

Illogical statements.
Hi Trey

Sigh! Big sigh! Listen, since you have stated that you have found my PMs in reply to yours to be "ridiculous" and you have labelled my last post to you as "illogical" please do e-mail me. Perhaps it may be possible to work this out off the Forum.

I do believe that everyone here on this Forum, as well as in real life, are good people at heart but sometimes clashes happen for a variety of reasons and it seems that the damage is irrepairable. It's not.

Do e-mail me Trey and say what you want to say. I will reply only with truth, facts and honesty, as I have always done in PMs to you or anyone and in my posts.

Jen

[Peter]

Dear Matts (and Trey too),

I read posts well into the past to get a sense of this site. I'm aware, as much as possible with what is still in the public domain, of what occurred and who was involved. I will say again that I admire Peter for his perseverence and I am beyond glad that he hasn't just washed his hands of this all. It would certainly be a lot easier for him, I'm sure, given the abuse he suffers. Any defensiveness he exhibits is well learned. His efforts and his tenacity will benefit us ALL. You, me, him.

It seems that you cannot resist attacking Peter in your posts. In another thread, started by a new poster, you had to bring him up just to disparage him before giving him his due for being onto something with this RLT.

I am in awe of RedHotOz for the incredible energy and stamina with which she has worked to answer your questions and stay reasonable with both you and Trey. You are in the company of focussed individuals who have a greater goal in mind than to prolong personal squabbles. Kudos to them for not backing down from the assaults. I feel exhausted for them.

Can you please just give it a rest. I'm here to learn and I want to keep reading your posts. I have enough stress dealing with this affliction, I come here looking for help, advice, and encouragement or to offer some of my own. If you feel offended, please turn the other cheek and motor through with the topic at hand. It will keep the level of discourse up and the personal interactions light. I am amazed at the combined knowledge of the members of this forum.

Peace. Love. Hope.

Most sincerely,
Twickle Purple.

Hello TP

Thanks for that excellent post and very kind words. You have given out some sound advice and I hope others will take notice of it.

To your credit at least you have had the sense to find out the history of events on this Forum and are now better placed than certain other individuals to make some sensible constructive comments. The past is important because it shapes our attitude towards the future but at the end of the day we are hear to learn, share, help and hopefully move forward together to try and find better treatments and ultimately a possible cure for rosacea. I always say "something good can always come of something bad".

All the Moderators on here do a tremendous job which as we all know is often a thankless task and I think we very often forget about the work they do and unfortunately just take it for granted. Another person who very rarely receives any credit is Warren and again if it wasn't for his efforts this place would not exist.

I noticed from another thread you were in that you were considering giving red light a try. Well again I am sure you have done you homework on this but there are several of us on this Forum who use this form of treatment, so if you need any help, advice or questions answered please give us a shout.

Best wishes

Peter

[Twickle Purple]

Thank you Peter.

Just another reason I am grateful for this Web site: I requested and have received the fabrication instructions from David on how to make a home unit. I have done a lot of reading on the 'net and see where the technology originated as well as all the very positive ways it is employed. I think there really is no downside to this. I had red 'lamp' treatments while in hospital 25 years ago!

My husband and I are very excited about the possible regenerative effects on my steroid-abused facial skin. I'll admit to being neurotic about growing old wondering how on earth my skin can get any more fragile and still hold me in! :roll: ... I would be more than happy to buy a unit such as David's if he is of the entrepreneurial mindset :wink: I'm such a lazy thing!

Feeling technically challenged.
Twickle Purple

[Felix2]

hello everyone, how are you today?