This page is for discussing the contents of Helmus & Helmus.
These are two comments that I would like to have removed as libelous:
2011-11-02 10:41:57 This is an abusive workplace.
I had one eye exam here. It was perfectly fine but I have never gone back. I have friends that have worked for this office for years and the abuse of the employees by the owners is horrific and I could not in good conscience give them any business. Random bursts of spit flinging screaming rage sessions directed at employees for any minor or imaginary deviation from protocol (occasionally in front of patients) punctuate an environment of belittlement and harassment. The fact that the staff of this office manages to put on a smile for the benefit of the patients despite their treatment is a testament to THEIR professionalism, not that of the “management”.
Just know what you're supporting if you decide to go with this office.
-
I don't know Mr. Townsley and he doesn't know us directly. He is either the friend or possibly boyfriend of an employee who used to work here and has no direct basis for his comments which are false (with the exception of the first two sentences). This comment was made in retaliation following the termination of employment of said employee and is designed only to damage our business. Claims such as "Random bursts of spit flinging screaming rage sessions" have absolutely no basis in truth.
-
Dr. Baker, can you clarify your comment? You say that the first two sentences of BT's comment are true. I assume you mean where BT says "I had one eye exam here. It was perfectly fine but I have never gone back." But then you say that you don't know BT. So, which is it? It seems as if you know which employee he is talking about. BT says clearly that he was not the employee, but rather, a friend of employees. As for "spit flinging screaming rage sessions," it strikes me that different people might perceive the same event differently. One person's heated yet civil argument is another person's "spit flinging screaming rage session." —CovertProfessor
-
I am not the one who gave him an eye exam, I have never met him. He did have an exam here in the past, as he stated, but he has no other direct insight into our practice. —Dr.Baker
-
It seems to me that the original comment is clear on that point — he says he is recounting what he heard from his friends, or perhaps witnessed, as he said that arguments occurred in front of patients "occasionally". He does not claim to have been a former employee himself. —CovertProfessor
-
I never said he was a former employee and neither did he. He never witnesssed any of the events he is attesting to, and I am stating that they in fact never happened. The point I would like to get across is that he is either fabricating these comments or repeating comments of another that were fabricated to him, with the intent of causing harm to our practice. The motivation for this is a bitter ex-employee who he either feels sympathy for or is trying to gain favor from, but regardless, it is made up. There is no differing perception here, his comment clearly implies an unprovoked verbal attack involving sputum-projectiles. There is nothing even remotely true about this, even if you were to eliminate the salivary component. In short, I'm not simply trying to remove a comment I don't like. There are plently of other comments that I don't like which I have made no argument about. So far I have removed only one comment (with the blessing of the wiki brethren) which was clearly written with malice. The concept is the same here: a comment written with malice containing false information with a clear motivation to cause harm. I think these comments act in opposition to the open forum that you are trying to promote and with the proper justification they should be removed. Allowing them to remain causes potential harm to local businesses when it is not warranted and degrades the integrity of the wiki. True critical comments, on the other hand, can promote positive responses from business owners and potentially elevate their quality of services. —Dr.Baker
-
Sputum-projectiles? Please. Have you never spit while you were talking? If not, you are probably the only person on the planet. Again, the comment is clear about what is personal experience and what is secondhand. People can judge secondhand knowledge for themselves. You are the one who will end up degrading the integrity of the wiki if you are successful. I am very tired of businesses coming on to the wiki and claiming harm instead of using the situation as an opportunity (either for improvement or response), and now you claim to care about the integrity of the wiki?? There is no evidence of that, only evidence that you care about your business. —CovertProfessor
2012-03-12 15:30:43 Almost none of the employees currently working there have been there for longer than two years, and after dealing with the past employees and current employees I think it's pretty safe to say everyone who is nice and friendly is gone. SERIOUSLY rude when I called in today with some basic questions regarding making an appointment. Guess I don't need to know since I won't be going here. —MasonMurray
-
Again, this comment includes false information, which is to say that the first sentence is untrue. Mr. Murray was informed when he called that past balances had gone unpaid for several years and therefore he would be required to pay for any professional services and materials that were not covered by insurance at the time that services were rendered, as opposed to being billed for any remaining balance after the fact.
-
Let's hang on here for a moment. I was not informed that I had an outstanding balance at all. In fact, this is the first I've heard about an outstanding balance. I was under the impression that my account was settled two years ago when I was last seen for contact lenses. The only question I asked, and the only information I received was regarding to pricing and when I was informed that I would not get the same pricing I had previously received I decided to go elsewhere. I find it highly unprofessional that you would post my current billing history on a public forum as well. Please do not do so in the future. I have provided not only my email, but my phone number as contact information you do not lack a way to get in touch with me. —MasonMurray
-
So, you can correct the factual claim about how long your employees have been there. As for the rest, it is his opinion that the staff he has dealt with are rude. Although I am not a lawyer, I am almost certain that is not libel to express an opinion of that sort. It seems as though you are using the factual inaccuracy as an excuse to remove the negative opinion. —CovertProfessor
-
I have no doubt that he felt he was treated rudely, I have given an explanation as to why I believe he felt that way so those reading this can come to their own conclusions. Regardless, his feeling does not justify making up falsehoods. —Dr.Baker
-
Why assume that he made up a falsehood? He could simply have been mistaken, and again, it is simple enough for you to correct by responding and stating how long your employees have been working for you. I don't see the justification for deleting the comment. —CovertProfessor
-
It would be more of an assumption that he made an honest mistake, rather than to see the obvious human reaction that he made to what he was told over the phone. To clarify, he made one phone call to the office in order to schedule an appointment and he was informed of the financial policy based on the past billing history. He was not denied the ability to make an appointment, he was simply told what the billing status would be so that there would not be any surprise when he came to the appointment, and this was stated to him without any negative tone nor rude intention. Based on this one phone conversation with one staff member, he then posted a comment that implies he is familiar with the entire staff demographic (he is not), and that everyone in the office is rude (an opinion that is unsubstantiated and in reality, false). To clarify, he is not simply claiming that the person he interacted with is rude, he is implying that everyone in the office is neither "nice" nor "friendly." My point here is that same as what I stated for the other comment above, which is that there is a clear motivation for this reactionary comment, and it is not based on a true evaluation of the practice. It is fabricated for the purpose of causing harm because he felt offended by the information he was told. To repeat what I said before: "I think these comments act in opposition to the open forum that you are trying to promote and with the proper justification they should be removed. Allowing them to remain causes potential harm to local businesses when it is not warranted and degrades the integrity of the wiki. True critical comments, on the other hand, can promote positive responses from business owners and potentially elevate their quality of services." —Dr.Baker
-
First of all I did not call to make an appointment. I called to inquire about pricing prior to making an appointment. Second, and a decidedly larger issue: I was not informed about this policy (which further serves to cement my decision). I was informed that (and only that) I would not get the same pricing as I had in the past. With regard to the first sentence of my post, let me say simply this: I have known several former employees both professionally and personally. I have had the pleasure of working with them at my place of work and theirs. None of the ones I have enjoyed interactions with still work at Helmus & Helmus. To say that no one working there is friendly may be a stretch, but as this is the internet I stand by it as exaggeration to make a point. —MasonMurray
-
The comments should stay. Mr. Murray is entitled to express his opinion that the person he spoke to was rude, regardless of an unpaid balance, and it is YOU, Dr. Baker, who come off as unprofessional by revealing Murray's billing status. -SM
-
While I have no wish to discuss any of these matters in a public forum, it was Mr. Murray's decision to create his false claim, and therefore I felt obligated to defend our position. Again, he is not expressing an opinion about one person that he spoke to, he is expressing an opinion about everyone in the office. —Dr.Baker
-
Whether the person he spoke with, or whether others he dealt with, were rude, is a matter of opinion and not a matter of fact. You might take it as useful information that one patient perceived that he had been dealt with rudely rather than seeking to censor them from the wiki. Instead you make accusations against a former patient about his intent, things you could not possibly know about, and attempt to discredit him by revealing his billing status for all the world to know. It is you who will (if successful) degrade the integrity of the wiki by removing one person's perceptions of the events. —CovertProfessor
Comments:
Note: You must be logged in to add comments
2012-05-19 23:40:36 is Dr Baker referencing Mr Murray a violation of HIPAA? I could infer something about a patient from the statements made... —StevenDaubert
2012-05-20 11:20:42 I think we've heard enough of Dr. Baker's side of things and I am unconvinced. I think the comments should stay. —CovertProfessor
-
I agree. Both statements are made reasonably, and they can be judged by the reader. I'm not so keen on Dr. Baker publishing the billing status of a patient... personally, I'm wondering if that action should be noted on the entry. It would certainly play a part in my decision regarding who to go to. —Evan 'JabberWokky' Edwards
2012-05-20 13:13:07 As an avid wiki-er, and a small business owner, I wrestled with this one. I know how I felt when I had a negative comment that I know to be bogus, but I got over it when I settled down and thought of it as an opportunity. I do think the comments should stay. You take this one down, and you might as well get rid of comments altogether. —Davidlm
-
I will say that I am often disappointed in the quality of the comments. ⁓ʝ⍵
-
Me too, although for very different reasons than those discussed on this page. —CovertProfessor
2012-05-20 16:36:44 I appreciate any number of both positive and critical comments, but I personally would like the line drawn at what I would consider to be cyber bullying. We had to deal with it before when someone tried to claim that we had a particular political stance (see the history of this talk page). Even in that case, when other wiki editors proved fairly easily that the comment was baseless, I still felt like I was being attacked for trying to have the comment removed. It eventually was, but the whole experience left me with a sour taste in my mouth, so suffice it to say I'm not in love with the wiki as a local professional. I truly feel that the comments above are also forms of cyber bullying, but the burden of proof is being placed on the ones being attacked (in this case our staff and my colleagues). I regret that none of you know me personally because you would understand that I have no malicious intent here, only defensive. Also, in person CP might actually catch my dry sense of humor ("sputum" and "salivary" comments were meant to elicit a laugh). I have actually been contemplating creating an eye questions forum on here for some time, as inspired by Dagon Jones' dental questions forum. It hasn't happened yet, probably because of all the diaper changes that consume my free time currently, and my extremely poor typing skills (don't ask how long this comment has taken me to compose). I'll get to it at some point, in the meantime if any of you would like to meet in person it would be nice to put a face to a name. -Alex —Dr.Baker
-
I think your best bet is to reply to the comments as simply and directly as you can, correcting factual errors. Reply to the opinions if you like, but be aware that business owners on the DavisWiki can compound problems by how we respond. The general consensus here has been to leave comments, even when they are unprovable and directly harmful to the business (my opinions on that issue have often been different than the consensus). Keep it short and sweet, and your dry humor may serve you well in this situation. —DonShor
2012-05-20 20:05:54 Thanks Don, I appreciate your suggestions. It would appear that there is a majority consensus on this talk page already to keep these comments, so I will reluctantly return them to the main page and possibly respond to them there. —Dr.Baker
