08702202020

If you are so passionate about Optimax being just as criticised as Opticsl Express - why are you big starting another campaign instead of sitting there moaning about it and criticising sasha. So [***] what if a part of her settlement is not to criticise Optimax - at least they have bothered compensating her and heard her complaint and i think she has every right to settle.

I've read Anne's story online at www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk

And I'm shocked to hear that Anne alleges she  had a second opinion which Optical Express should have paid for and they ( optical express )haven't paid the bill to the surgeon who did the consultation -
- Optical Express don't even sound like they give a monkeys about what industry professionals think of them / why else would they delay paying bills as 'Anne' alleges ???

Possibly lack of money. They may be completely skint.

@Wondering
I agree – WhoCallsMe probably does not condone bullying.  However, I have yet to see any instances of coercion or intimidation directed at you.  Attempts by you, yes, but not at you.  For the record it was you who challenged reading with interest to meet and when he finally agreed, you backed off and have tried to twist the situation around ever since.

I don’t consider rebutting your argument or reminding you of the site moderator requests as bullying.  I merely re-posted Julia’s response to you, reference your habit of re-posting drivel.  In case you hadn’t realised it, Julia owns WhoCallsMe.  Her requests deserve some respect.

You ask “If Optimax and Optical Express were the same , why did Optical Express attract being called the ' worst performing optical chain ' by the Which Magazine”.  The answer is that they didn’t.  That is purely your invention as is the assertion that Which? singled out Optical Express.

I asked you to read the actual Which? article.  It was called “Eye-Openers” and published in the April 2009 issue.  You can find it here:
http://www.which.co.uk/documents/pdf/laser-eye-surgery-195167.pdf

I quote
“None of the chains came out better overall and, according to our experts, it’s clear that they (and independents) need to improve standards of consultation and sales techniques.”

On the very limited survey only two of the Optimax clinics were rated as satisfactory, none of the Optical Express and only one UltraLase.

Read the article.  Which? definitely did not take size of company into account.

In answer to your question, I can read.  Moreover, unlike you, I do read, do check my facts and also ensure that I understand what I’m reading.  To the best of my knowledge, the above referenced article is the only one on the subject by Which?.  If you know of another where Which? actually stated that Optical Express were ' the worst performing optical chain ' please provide a reference.  If you cannot, then please stop repeating the lie.

There is no need to swear.  My criticism is of Sasha’s hypocrisy.  I’m not the one claiming to be campaigning for industry wide legislation whilst ignoring one third of it.  She did have every right to settle, but not to cynically use the misery of other patients as leverage to increase her personal payout.  

Comparison of stories from Optimax and Optical Express patients suggests that Optical Express failures often get a better deal.  There is criticism of the Complex Cases team, but Optimax don’t have an equivalent, even though their complication rate is similar.  Further, Optimax don’t like paying out for referrals and will always try and do it on the cheap.  It works out better for them that way.  Cheap referral not only saves money on the consultation, but also on quality of report and therefore reduced basis for compensation.

http://www.opticianonline.net/Articles/2011/0 ... stery+shop.html

Dunno what you've been reading you rubbish journalist - probably just trying to promote the good stuff re Optical Express -

So see the above link where you will find this quote .

'The Which? investigation's worst performing chain, Optical Express, insisted it offered 'an excellent standard of patient care'. Two Optical Express practices were rated as 'very poor' by Which? mystery shoppers, while another was rated as 'poor'.

'Without knowing the details surrounding these alleged patients and their alleged eye problems we are unable to respond to the unsubstantiated and unverified report published by Which? magazine,' an Optical Express spokesperson said.'


Bet David moulsdale loves your valiant attempts to cover up how , in my view ,he is trying to cover up the events that led to him putting an 83 store subsidiary into administration last year .

Which magazine rated Optical Express as the worst according to this article .


I bet you are lying about being a journalist - if you were a journalist you would have read this article or at least found the one I was talking about. !

For the record reading with interest who I think works for optical express used derogatory language towards women - In my opinion he would probably fit right in with David moulsdales alleged ethos towards women from what I have gathered . Naturally Julie has kindly deleted those comments from this forum.

@Wondering
If you had bothered to read the preceding chain you should have appreciated that it was about laser surgery, not opticians.  It was implicit in comparing Optimax and Optical Express - Optimax don't offer optician services.  However, you are still wrong.

Once again you need to go back to the source:
http://www.which.co.uk/news/2011/08/opticians-fail-the-which-eye-test-263296/

Quote
"The big chains were not any better or worse over the 40 visits, the investigation found."

You would lose your bet.  I went back to the source, not someone else's interpretation of it.  Your quote was not from Which?

The laser surgery business has shrunk to nearly half of its peak value.  Optimax, Ultralase and Optical Express base costs are in running their shops.  If the business is not there to support it then you have to cut the numberr of shops.  Both Optimax and Optical Express are doing it

Talking about lying, I notice that you have backed off from your post of 21st August '12 - where you claim to have witnessed the multiple bedroom scenario.  It is now "alleged" by someone else.  Were you EX?  or possibly Chang?

@Wondering
For the record, you initially used derogatory language towards reading with interest and then he responded in kind, but specifically to you, not to women in general.

You also neglect to point out that Julia deleted your derogatory comments at the same time.  They were still on Google cache the last time that I looked.

Lies / that's how I can get a good idea of who's payroll you might be on .

Why are you so keen to defend readingwithinterest ?
Are you both on David moulsdales payroll ?

Why can't you ask David Moulsdale to get here and fight his own battles like a man would ?
Is it because he's too embarrassed and ashamed of himself ?

@Wondering
Care to tell me what you think that I lied about?

I'm not so much defending reading with interest as attacking hypocrisy and lies on your part.

Lots of people read your exchange with reading with interest last December.  They noted that you started the derogatory language, that you challenged him to meet you, that he finally agreed, you wanted a different time, he agreed, but not to all your demands.  Then you wanted a lift home afterwards.  He refused.  From memory, I believe that he called you a slapper.  That was clearly specific to you and not to women in general.

After forcing the issue, you then tried to imply that he was trying to entice you into a meeting and would be violent towards you.  In the process you tried to twist the truth and stated that the challenge to a meeting was all down to reading with interest.  All helped by deletion of two pages of posts.

I've answered your posts and substantiated my answers, yet you ignore the answers when it doesn't suit your agenda and go back to re-posting the same old drivel.

I'm not on anyones payroll except my own.

You'll have to ask Moulsdale why he can't be bothered to deal with an emotional obsessive like yourself.  If your claims are correct you, know him.  After all, in your post of 21st August '12 you claim to have witnessed the multiple bedroom scenario and had thought him to be a "good person" beforehand.  Now you've backed off  and attributed the allegation to someone else.  Were you EX?  or possibly Chang?  Make your mind up.  Did you witness it or not?


In reply to your re-post, here's a couple of re-posts that you should note:

"Julia
13 Jan 2013
Re-posts have been removed.

Wondering, please do not re-post the same message. Thank you!"


"Julia replies to Wondering
14 Jan 2013
Windering, re-posts clutter the pages.

Thank you!"


What was it that you did not understand about "please do not re-post the same message"?

It's hilarious that this thread continues, same old same old, by the same small group of posters.  

If you want to knock Optical Express or any other Eye Laser company, then surely there are better web-sites that will carry a bigger impact.  There are many health forums out there, this site must have a small "dedicated" audience, the tell tale give-away is the same old story is constantly being regurgitated 'ad nauseum'.  

I can assure the protagonists who are determined to not give up and have the last word, any victory here will be shallow.  If you want to achieve a bigger impact, use your search engine, there are many idiotic bogus posters on many sites promoting the joy of being "glasses free" due to eye laser surgery.  

Step forth and educate them.  The flip side is, perhaps there are posters here, who want to keep posters pre-occupied with this site intentionally, less of an impact.

anon

you claim to be a journalist but you wont provide ur name or email address.
I dont know why you think you are credible.

ps

i never read ur post...

it really is that bad!

david moulsdale allegedly cant deal with his own customers!!! why else does www.opticalexpressruinedmylife.co.uk allege he has failed to respond to complaining customers email.

So yea- i suppose it makes sense. Youre right- Moulsdale probably hasnt got an answer for anyone- maybe thats why he wont pitch up.

anon- ur so busted

clearly you must be very passionate about covering for david moulsdale

do you realise how desperate you sound?????

im not 'chang 'or 'ex' and you know it.

are you david moulsdale????

who else would be so passionate about covering for him??????

so how much does david moulsdale pay you to cover for him Anon?

When is enough enough?  What more is there to be said that hasn't already?  Who's winning?  Who will win?

I can tell you who is losing.   Those wasting their time day after day, wanting to get the last word, those coming to this site in case they miss a spot of dribble, catching up with the latest gossip, "he said she said".  For God Sake get a life why don't you all.

There is a big wide world out there, I suggest folk should go, explore and put things into perspective, read an up lifting book, go watch a good movie, cook a nice meal, buy a pet, get laid, smoke a joint, do something to make yourselves feel good, if these options don't work contact a physcotherapists.

What is being achieved with the constant ranting?   I assure you not a lot, other than wasted time & energy.  What impact are the posts in this thread having exactly?  Nothing more than they already have.      

If you have an axe to grind, want to go after OE, Optimax, DM, Sasha or the campaign, surely there are  better ways to achieve results, then spending your precious time, back 'n' forth assuming who is who and accusing everybody of being somebody else, like some boorish mind game.  It's like watching a car crash being conducted by adults acting like teenagers.  

If anybody ever does get the final word, it will be nothing to shout about, you won't be considered the winner, only the idiot who hung around to long.

@Wise Monkey
Very True.  However, you don't counter bullies/trolls by giving up and going away.

For the sake of a couple of minutes a day, I will continue to counter lies, hypocrisy and attempted bullying from the likes of Wondering and ExOE.  

You will note that Wondering has not replied to any of the previous point raised, but appears to have been up late, trying to shout me down and get the last word.  It's a standard troll tactic to discourage any opposing views and hijack/own a thread.  That's what Sasha did when she fell out with other forums.  Now it has turned to her disadvantage.

Wondering is also trying to stir me, as she did with reading with interest, so as to be able to twist the situation around.  It won't work. She has already started swearing and trying to change/twist the situation.

If you have been reading this thread you will know that my objective was to make contact with people who had information about the unpublicised activities of the campaign for industry wide regulation.  I've managed that.  Ironically, it appears that some, who otherwise wouldn't have made contact, did so because they disagreed with the activities of Wondering et al.  So, thank you Wondering, for being such a disagreeable net character ;)

Continuing to post here is also raising media interest in the dirty dealings of the campaign, so I have an interested buyer for my article.


@Wondering
For someone who claims not to read my posts, they seem to stir you up.  Posting quotes doesn't make your claims any more credible, just means that you've run out of logical argument.  You did that a long time ago.

If you have not been lying, you would appear to be an awful lot closer to Moulsdale than I am.  The closest that I have been is reading about him. I'm certainly not being paid by him or his company and certainly not defending either.  That's your invention.  Saying that his company stinks and trades in the gutter is hardly defending it.  I have no opinion on the man because I know little about him and the published data is poles apart.  The truth is probably somewhere between the two poles.

In your post of 21st August '12, you claim to have "witnessed" the multiple bedroom scenario and said that you had thought him to be a "good person" beforehand.  Now you've backed off  and attributed the allegation to someone else (Ex).  Make your mind up.  Did you witness it or not?

If both statements are true, ie you witnessed it and so did Ex, why hasn't Ex posted again?  Hence my question as to whether you were Ex - in more ways than one.

The OERML website is thriving. Check out all the posts in the forum from the same 4 people. The industry is about to crumble at my feet. Not that i can see that far mind you cos my eyes were broken by Optimax. Oops sorry Mr.Ambrose i let it slip. Do i have to give you the money back? Oops i let that slip too. Silly me

e-petition
Guidelines & Standards for Laser Refractive Eye Surgery
Number of signatures:
   207
Created by:
   Sasha Rodoy
Closing:
   02/02/2013 08:11

Hurry, only another few days for those final 9,793 signatures needed.  It's OK - Optimax patients can sign it, just that Sasha isn't allowed to communicate directly with you and ask.  Pity that there isn't an ORML website and Twitter account to raise interest.  Wait a minute - there was, until the great campaiger was bought off.

Says the biggest coward on the planet . Who claims to be a journalist yet won't tell anyone who he is .

Look forward to seeing this master piece of yours - just hope you don't wind up publishing it on toilet paper .