Re: Question for Andrew Chung
Andrew B. Chump, MD/PhD
> Andrew - you seem to be ignoring my request for comment in the thread titled
> "lowering of metabolism after weight loss". This is odd, because you
> normally reply to every post made to you, but perhaps your newsreader is
> experiencing technical difficulties, so I'll restate my request here.
>
> Yesterday, you strongly inferred that another poster (Stacey Bender) was
> "psychotic". Specifically, you said, "Your belief that you have been
> hearing my voice suggests that you might be psychotic. Are you taking
> medications for schizophrenia?".
>
> Reviewing Stacey's prior posts, I was unable to find any in which she
> claimed to have heard your voice She was, however, making some cogent
> observations about the lack of scientific evidence supporting your claimed
> success rate for your 2P Diet.
>
> Losing one's temper during an argument, and calling the other person
> "psychotic" seems very un-Christian to me...especially when it's done on the
> Sabbath.
>
> So, my questions to you are as follows:
>
> 1) How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs, with your actions calling
> someone "psychotic"?
Well it is quite easy Gary. On all days with the letter "y" in them, God
allows me to suspend my beliefs for the duration of my attack on the
person who dares to challenge my authority.
>
> 2) Do you feel bad for calling her a psychotic on the Sabbath?
I never feel bad. It isn't good for you to feel bad, so I don't do it.
> 3) Did you make a mistake in calling her psychotic, and do you owe her an
> apology? (in your "judgment", of course :-) )
I don't owe anybody anything, in fact the whole world owes me something
and I am out collecting. Have you paid up yet?
BTW does the G in your name stand for Glitter? (I'll show you my
collection of little boys if it does.)
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
is a Board-Certified Nutcase
I considered atheism but there weren't enough holidays..
GaryG
ng's). The thread can be found here:
Your silence in response in this matter is unusual, because you normally
reply to every post made to you. But perhaps your newsreader is experiencing
technical difficulties, so I'll restate my questions here.
On Sunday, you strongly inferred that another poster (Stacey Bender) was
"psychotic". Specifically, you said:
"Your belief that you have been hearing my voice suggests that you might be
psychotic. Are you taking medications for schizophrenia?".
Reviewing Stacey's prior posts, I was unable to find any in which she
claimed to have heard your voice She was, however, making some cogent
observations about the lack of scientific evidence supporting your claimed
success rate for your 2P Diet.
So, it sounds as if you lost your temper with her. Losing one's temper
during an argument, and calling the other person "psychotic" seems very
"un-Christian" to me...especially when it's done on the Sabbath.
So, my questions to you are as follows:
1) How do you reconcile your Christian beliefs, with your actions in calling
someone "psychotic"?
2) Do you feel bad for calling her a psychotic on the Sabbath?
3) Did you make a mistake in calling her psychotic, and do you owe her an
apology? (in your "judgment", of course :-) )
GG
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Andrew - you seem to be ignoring my request for comment in the thread titled
> "lowering of metabolism after weight loss" (in alt.support.diet, and other
> ng's). The thread can be found here:
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.diet/browse_frm/thread/089f75d28c68b0a7/2fef1e9ce8fa7257#2fef1e9ce8fa7257
>
> or, http://tinyurl.com/dp5mv
>
> Your silence in response in this matter is unusual, because you normally
> reply to every post made to you. But perhaps your newsreader is experiencing
> technical difficulties, so I'll restate my questions here.
>
> On Sunday, you strongly inferred that another poster (Stacey Bender) was
> "psychotic". Specifically, you said:
>
> "Your belief that you have been hearing my voice suggests that you might be
> psychotic. Are you taking medications for schizophrenia?".
>
> Reviewing Stacey's prior posts, I was unable to find any in which she
> claimed to have heard your voice
"Yet you **said** you did know what was in its mind. I wonder why that
was?"
(emphasis added)
http://makeashorterlink.com/?Z2B732AEA
Truth is simple.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?P2264129A
The way to the truth is straight and narrow:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?A2642108A
Again, Lord Christ teaches from Matthew 5:
11Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
say all kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be glad,
because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they
persecuted the prophets who were before you.
You will remain in my prayers, dear Gary, whom I love, in Lord Christ's
holy name.
May you reject your pride and accept Him as your personal Lord and
Savior, someday, so that you too will have eternal life and the
fascinating riches of His everlasting kingdom.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
Please note that God truly made this special link describing that He is
the great "I am" and that His message is as simple as the number 2 which
is a number between 1 to 9 and reminds us of His 2 commandments, the 2
arms of the cross, the 2nd part of the Trinity, the 2 finger sign of the
Prince of Peace [who remains *V*ictorious over death and satan], and the
2PD-OMER Approach. Let it not ever be written that Christ did not make
His presence known here on Usenet :-)
Also, note that Exodus 16:16 continues to remind us that 16 oz plus 16
oz makes 2 pounds, which is "a certain measure of weight," which is what
"omer" literally means in Hebrew.
Enter the 2PD-OMER Approach, which can "cure" metabolic syndrome thereby
bringing this thread back on topic :-)
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?V113154DA
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
GaryG
news:4264D8F5...@heartmdphd.com...
> GaryG wrote:
> >
> > Andrew - you seem to be ignoring my request for comment in the thread
titled
> > "lowering of metabolism after weight loss" (in alt.support.diet, and
other
> > ng's). The thread can be found here:
> >
> >
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/alt.support.diet/browse_frm/thread/089f75d28c68b0a7/2fef1e9ce8fa7257#2fef1e9ce8fa7257
> >
> > or, http://tinyurl.com/dp5mv
> >
> > Your silence in response in this matter is unusual, because you normally
> > reply to every post made to you. But perhaps your newsreader is
experiencing
> > technical difficulties, so I'll restate my questions here.
> >
> > On Sunday, you strongly inferred that another poster (Stacey Bender) was
> > "psychotic". Specifically, you said:
> >
> > "Your belief that you have been hearing my voice suggests that you might
be
> > psychotic. Are you taking medications for schizophrenia?".
> >
> > Reviewing Stacey's prior posts, I was unable to find any in which she
> > claimed to have heard your voice
>
> "Yet you **said** you did know what was in its mind. I wonder why that
> was?"
Oh, please, Andrew....using the word "said" in the context of a series of
usenet postings is common practice. It is synonymous with "wrote", and does
not in any way imply that they are claiming to have heard your voice. You
should know this.
So, that leaves a couple of possbilities:
1) You misunderstood her meaning, due to your lack of understanding of
idiomatic English.
If this is the case, then you made a mistake when you strongly inferred on
that basis that she is "psychotic". If this was your mistake, do you owe
her an apology?
2) You are grasping at a straw to bolster your argument, and avoid taking
responsibility for losing your temper aind inferring that another poster is
mentally ill.
I strongly suspect the latter, as that seems to be your style in these
matters, but I await your further clarification.
GG
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
I am as unable to "know this" as you were "unable to find" what I have
provided for you.
Truth is simple.
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
elgoog
3) His purpose here is to be argumentative.
Jeff
There is this neat book called a "dictionary." If you read the entry for
said, it says it is the past tense of "say." And Webster's says this about
'say':
Main Entry: 1say
Pronunciation: 'sA, Southern also 'se
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): said /'sed, esp when subject follows s&d/; say·ing
/'sA-i[ng]/; says /'sez, sometimes 'sAz, esp when subject follows s&z/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English secgan; akin to Old High German
sagEn to say, Lithuanian sakyti, Greek ennepein to speak, tell
transitive senses
1 a : to express in words : STATE b : to state as opinion or belief :
DECLARE
2 a : UTTER, PRONOUNCE b : RECITE, REPEAT <say your prayers>
3 a : INDICATE, SHOW <the clock says five minutes after twelve> b : to give
expression to : COMMUNICATE <a glance that said all that was necessary>
intransitive senses : to express oneself : SPEAK
- say·er /'sA-&r, 'se(-&)r/ noun
- say uncle : to admit defeat
- that is to say : in other words : in effect
<end quote>
Although it is often used to indicate spoken lanquage, it also means (3b) to
give expression to. It is very common hear, "The newspaper said ..." or the
"website said...." as the cambridge dictionary says:
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=70070&dict=CALD
Definition
say (GIVE INFORMATION) [Show phonetics]
verb [T] said, said
to give information in writing, numbers or signs:
My watch says 3 o'clock.
Can you read what that notice says?
[+ (that)] It says in the paper (that) they've found the man who did it.
[+ to infinitive] It says on the bottle to take three tablets a day.
<end quote>
I hope that when a patient asks you about medication, and she says, "The
bottle said to take one tablet, twice a day," you don't think the bottle is
litterally talking to her.
Jeff
GaryG
OK, then...you admit that you were unaware of the common meaning of the verb
"said" in this context. Now we're getting somewhere. However, that means
that you made a mistake when you inferred that Stacey was mentally ill on
the basis of her usage of that word (it sounds as if your powers of "truth
discernment" failed you in this instance).
On the basis of your admitted mistake, do you think it would be useful to
offer Stacey an apology for the way you disparaged her? I think that would
be the proper "Christian" thing to do...don't you?
On a similar issue, I've noticed that you often write the following:
"Ouch. You may have at the other cheek."
Are we to infer from your writing that you are feeling physical facial pain
when you write these statements? If so, does the pain occur in one cheek
only, or does it vary?
Also, I noticed that you snipped a large portion of my previous post
(replicated below). I'm sorry if my questions make you upset, but for
benefit of other readers I request that you leave the content intact.
> So, that leaves a couple of possbilities:
>
> 1) You misunderstood her meaning, due to your lack of understanding of
> idiomatic English.
> If this is the case, then you made a mistake when you strongly inferred on
> that basis that she is "psychotic". If this was your mistake, do you owe
> her an apology?
>
> 2) You are grasping at a straw to bolster your argument, and avoid taking
> responsibility for losing your temper aind inferring that another poster
is
> mentally ill.
>
> I strongly suspect the latter, as that seems to be your style in these
> matters, but I await your further clarification.
GG
>
GaryG
news:iP89e.9964$go4...@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net...
LOL - that could explain his lack of patients in the real world.
Well done, and thanks for the dictionary references (saved me the trouble).
GG
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
In truth, that would depend on the patient.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Glad you agree :-)
GaryG
Andrew...thank you for your succinct reply. I'm sorry my words are so
troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and snipping my
posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly fascinating
insight into your mental makeup. For that, you have my thanks.
Based on your avoidance of the issues in this matter, it appears that you
are incapable of admitting a mistake, or apologizing when you lose your
temper and insult someone (on the Sabbath!). When challenged on your
behavior, you try to avoid the issue by feigning ignorance (as when you
claimed that you did not understand what Stacey meant when she used the word
"said"), or you try to avoid it altogether by snipping whole sections of
posts and attempting to change their meaning (as in your most recent post).
These are truly fascinating insights into your hyper-rigid mental state.
Admitting personal mistakes, and apologizing, are not easy for most
people...but, for you they appear to be impossiblities. Why do you suppose
that is? Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)? Or, are you merely
incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
BTW - your actions in this matter do not inspire confidence towards your
claims for the success rate of your 2PD. With no published research to back
it up, we're left only with your claims as to its efficacy. But, why would
we believe the claims of someone who either believes they are incapable of
error, or is unable to admit to making an error?
GG
>
Jeff
"GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message
news:7_a9e.10369$c42....@fe07.lga...
(...)
> Andrew...thank you for your succinct reply. I'm sorry my words are so
> troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and snipping
> my
> posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly fascinating
> insight into your mental makeup. For that, you have my thanks.
I am not sure that I want to get too far into Mr. Chung's mental makeup. It
is a while since my rotations in psychiatry.
> Based on your avoidance of the issues in this matter, it appears that you
> are incapable of admitting a mistake, or apologizing when you lose your
> temper and insult someone (on the Sabbath!). When challenged on your
> behavior, you try to avoid the issue by feigning ignorance (as when you
> claimed that you did not understand what Stacey meant when she used the
> word
> "said"), or you try to avoid it altogether by snipping whole sections of
> posts and attempting to change their meaning (as in your most recent
> post).
> These are truly fascinating insights into your hyper-rigid mental state.
>
> Admitting personal mistakes, and apologizing, are not easy for most
> people...but, for you they appear to be impossiblities. Why do you
> suppose
> that is? Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)? Or, are you
> merely
> incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
I guess humility is not one of his strong points.
> BTW - your actions in this matter do not inspire confidence towards your
> claims for the success rate of your 2PD. With no published research to
> back
> it up, we're left only with your claims as to its efficacy. But, why
> would
> we believe the claims of someone who either believes they are incapable of
> error, or is unable to admit to making an error?
I share similar concerns about his research.
Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You are welcome :-)
> I'm sorry my words are so
> troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and snipping my
> posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly fascinating
> insight into your mental makeup.
Sorry my snipping your words bother you so much. Ime, self-worshippers
tend to believe that what they write is **sacred** (to themselves).
> For that, you have my thanks.
Again, you are welcome to the insight that my writings have provided
you.
> Based on your avoidance of the issues in this matter, it appears that you
> are incapable of admitting a mistake, or apologizing when you lose your
> temper and insult someone (on the Sabbath!).
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully on any given day.
> When challenged on your
> behavior, you try to avoid the issue by feigning ignorance (as when you
> claimed that you did not understand what Stacey meant when she used the word
> "said"), or you try to avoid it altogether by snipping whole sections of
> posts and attempting to change their meaning (as in your most recent post).
It seems you are prone to daydreaming.
> These are truly fascinating insights into your hyper-rigid mental state.
Your feigned fascination betrays your despair.
> Admitting personal mistakes, and apologizing, are not easy for most
> people...but, for you they appear to be impossiblities.
It seems you are confusing me with my Lord who is perfect and does not
make mistakes.
> Why do you suppose
> that is?
He is God.
> Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)?
There you go again, confusing me with my Lord.
> Or, are you merely
> incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> BTW - your actions in this matter do not inspire confidence towards your
> claims for the success rate of your 2PD.
That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 people who have
firsthand familiarity with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> With no published research to back
> it up, we're left only with your claims as to its efficacy.
"The proof is in the pudding."
> But, why would
> we believe the claims of someone who either believes they are incapable of
> error, or is unable to admit to making an error?
It is written that those who choose to accept Jesus as their Lord and
Savior have been enabled by God to make that choice. Yes, Lord Jesus
believes He is incapable of error because He **is** incapable of error.
GaryG
Your judgement <shrug>.
Regardless of whether or not I believe my writings are sacred (I don't), why
would you take the time to snip them before replying? It strongly suggests
that you are trying to avoid the issues, or trying to intentionally change
the meaning of my replies (something you did earlier today).
Is intentionally changing the meaning of another person's post, "writing
trutfully"?
>
> > For that, you have my thanks.
>
> Again, you are welcome to the insight that my writings have provided
> you.
>
> > Based on your avoidance of the issues in this matter, it appears that
you
> > are incapable of admitting a mistake, or apologizing when you lose your
> > temper and insult someone (on the Sabbath!).
>
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully on any given day.
And yet, you continue to avoid addressing the issue of your behavior toward
Stacey last Sunday. You strongly inferred that she is "psychotic". Later,
you admitted that you were confused by the meaning of the word "said".
Thus, you called her psychotic on the basis of an error...so calling her
psychotic cannot be a "truthful" statement. Thus, you made an error by
calling her psychotic, and owe her an apology. Wouldn't that be the
Christian thing to do, rather than running away from your responsibility?
> > When challenged on your
> > behavior, you try to avoid the issue by feigning ignorance (as when you
> > claimed that you did not understand what Stacey meant when she used the
word
> > "said"), or you try to avoid it altogether by snipping whole sections of
> > posts and attempting to change their meaning (as in your most recent
post).
>
> It seems you are prone to daydreaming.
And you seem prone to running away from the issue of your behavior towards
Stacey. I know this must be very difficult for you...it's never easy to
admit that we've made a mistake, and apologize for it. But, most normal
people are capable of doing so. Why are you incapable of performing this
simple, Christian act?
>
> > These are truly fascinating insights into your hyper-rigid mental state.
>
> Your feigned fascination betrays your despair.
Not so...it truly is fascinating, and illustrative to us all, to see the
lengths you will go to to avoid admissions of error.
>
> > Admitting personal mistakes, and apologizing, are not easy for most
> > people...but, for you they appear to be impossiblities.
>
> It seems you are confusing me with my Lord who is perfect and does not
> make mistakes.
So, you are admitting that you are capable of making a mistake...good.
That's progress, Andy. Now, how about apologizing to Stacey for calling her
psychotic?
>
> > Why do you suppose
> > that is?
>
> He is God.
>
> > Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)?
>
> There you go again, confusing me with my Lord.
>
> > Or, are you merely
> > incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
>
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
I'm sure you try to as much as humanly possible, as do we all. But, you've
already admitted that this was not true in the statements you made about
Stacey. So, what is the harm in offering her your apology?
GG
> > BTW - your actions in this matter do not inspire confidence towards your
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
That is not what I discern.
> > > Admitting personal mistakes, and apologizing, are not easy for most
> > > people...but, for you they appear to be impossiblities.
> >
> > It seems you are confusing me with my Lord who is perfect and does not
> > make mistakes.
>
> So, you are admitting that you are capable of making a mistake...good.
> That's progress, Andy. Now, how about apologizing to Stacey for calling her
> psychotic?
In truth, I do not know that she isn't psychotic.
> > > Why do you suppose
> > > that is?
> >
> > He is God.
> >
> > > Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)?
> >
> > There you go again, confusing me with my Lord.
> >
> > > Or, are you merely
> > > incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
> I'm sure you try to as much as humanly possible, as do we all. But, you've
> already admitted that this was not true in the statements you made about
> Stacey.
Hardly.
> So, what is the harm in offering her your apology?
It may trigger delusions of grandeur...
...in **you**.
For this you remain in my prayers, dear Gary whom I love, in Lord Jesus'
holy name.
GaryG
Your non-response is duly noted (this seems to be a pattern in your
behavior, Andy). But, at least you didn't snip it, so we can celebrate a
little bit of progress here.
But, you strongly inferred that she *is* psychotic in your post on Sunday!
On what basis did you make that public judgement? Do you see any evidence
in what she wrote of disordered or delusional thought patterns?
What do your self-proclaimed "powers of truth discernment" tell you about
Stacey?
If you inferred she is psychotic without having reasonable evidence, you are
guilty of insulting her. It seems likely this was the case. She was making
some pretty good points at the time about the lack of evidence as to the
efficacy of your 2PD, and it's understandable that you would get upset about
that.
Why don't you be a man, and admit you lost your temper, and simply apologize
to Stacey?
>
>
> > > > Why do you suppose
> > > > that is?
> > >
> > > He is God.
> > >
> > > > Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)?
> > >
> > > There you go again, confusing me with my Lord.
> > >
> > > > Or, are you merely
> > > > incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >
> > I'm sure you try to as much as humanly possible, as do we all. But,
you've
> > already admitted that this was not true in the statements you made about
> > Stacey.
>
> Hardly.
Well, you did claim that you did not understand the meaning of the word
"said" (you claimed that you thought that Stacey actually was hearing your
voice). So, if you called her psychotic on that basis, you made a
mistake...a mistake which would normally require an apology.
>
> > So, what is the harm in offering her your apology?
>
> It may trigger delusions of grandeur...
>
> ...in **you**.
So, you're not going to offer her an apology because of its possible effect
on me? Is that a Christian point of view?
Yet again, it sounds as if you are quite aware of your transgression, but
simply cannot bear the thought of admitting you made a simple, human,
mistake. The mental gymnastics you employ to avoid that admission are
truly fascinating.
GG
Jeff
(...)
>> I'm sorry my words are so
>> troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and snipping
>> my
>> posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly fascinating
>> insight into your mental makeup.
>
> Sorry my snipping your words bother you so much. Ime, self-worshippers
> tend to believe that what they write is **sacred** (to themselves).
At least Gary didn't write a FAQ about himself.
However, it is obvious to me that Gary is correct. The way you snipped the
words changed the meaning of what he had written. You have do that many
times in the past, as well.
>> For that, you have my thanks.
>
> Again, you are welcome to the insight that my writings have provided
> you.
>
>> Based on your avoidance of the issues in this matter, it appears that you
>> are incapable of admitting a mistake, or apologizing when you lose your
>> temper and insult someone (on the Sabbath!).
>
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully on any given day.
However, the way you snip things, without even indicating that words have
been snipped is intellectually dishonest.
>> When challenged on your
>> behavior, you try to avoid the issue by feigning ignorance (as when you
>> claimed that you did not understand what Stacey meant when she used the
>> word
>> "said"), or you try to avoid it altogether by snipping whole sections of
>> posts and attempting to change their meaning (as in your most recent
>> post).
>
> It seems you are prone to daydreaming.
I would suggest other readers of this forum review the thread and make a
determination for themselves.
>> These are truly fascinating insights into your hyper-rigid mental state.
>
> Your feigned fascination betrays your despair.
Actually, Gary is correct.
>> Admitting personal mistakes, and apologizing, are not easy for most
>> people...but, for you they appear to be impossiblities.
>
> It seems you are confusing me with my Lord who is perfect and does not
> make mistakes.
Actually, this is not the case. Admitting personal mistakes and apologiszing
for them is something that Christian people do.
>> Why do you suppose
>> that is?
>
> He is God.
So God told you that you should not admit mistakes?
>> Are you "perfect" (i.e., incapable of error)?
>
> There you go again, confusing me with my Lord.
There you go again, avoiding the question.
>> Or, are you merely
>> incapable of admitting it when you make a mistake?
>
> It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
When you start writing truthfully, please let us know.
>> BTW - your actions in this matter do not inspire confidence towards your
>> claims for the success rate of your 2PD.
>
> That does not seem to be bothering the more than 625,550 people who have
> firsthand familiarity with the 2PD-OMER Approach.
I will believe this when I see it published in the peer-reveiewed
literature.
>> With no published research to back
>> it up, we're left only with your claims as to its efficacy.
>
> "The proof is in the pudding."
Actually, the proof is in the journals. Oops, you haven't published yet.
>> But, why would
>> we believe the claims of someone who either believes they are incapable
>> of
>> error, or is unable to admit to making an error?
>
> It is written that those who choose to accept Jesus as their Lord and
> Savior have been enabled by God to make that choice. Yes, Lord Jesus
> believes He is incapable of error because He **is** incapable of error.
I fail to see what accepting Jesus as our Lord and Savior has to do with
believing what you say.
Jeff
Jeff
"GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
(...)
> And yet, you continue to avoid addressing the issue of your behavior
> toward
> Stacey last Sunday. You strongly inferred that she is "psychotic".
> Later,
> you admitted that you were confused by the meaning of the word "said".
>
> Thus, you called her psychotic on the basis of an error...so calling her
> psychotic cannot be a "truthful" statement. Thus, you made an error by
> calling her psychotic, and owe her an apology. Wouldn't that be the
> Christian thing to do, rather than running away from your responsibility?
If he truthfully thought that "said" only refers to the spoken word, then he
was truthful when he implied that the lady was insane. (In fact, he must
think a lot of people are insane when they talk about newspapers or websites
said something.)
However, when it was pointed out to him that "said" also means expressed, it
would have been appropraite to apologize.
>
>
>> > When challenged on your
>> > behavior, you try to avoid the issue by feigning ignorance (as when you
>> > claimed that you did not understand what Stacey meant when she used the
> word
>> > "said"), or you try to avoid it altogether by snipping whole sections
>> > of
>> > posts and attempting to change their meaning (as in your most recent
> post).
>>
>> It seems you are prone to daydreaming.
>
> And you seem prone to running away from the issue of your behavior towards
> Stacey. I know this must be very difficult for you...it's never easy to
> admit that we've made a mistake, and apologize for it. But, most normal
> people are capable of doing so. Why are you incapable of performing this
> simple, Christian act?
Perhaps the apology can't get past his ego.
(...)
Jeff
Jeff
> GaryG wrote:
(...)
>> So, you are admitting that you are capable of making a mistake...good.
>> That's progress, Andy. Now, how about apologizing to Stacey for calling
>> her
>> psychotic?
>
> In truth, I do not know that she isn't psychotic.
What evidence do you have that she is psychotic?
And even if she is, without good reason to beleive that she is psychotic,
would it not be the Christian thing to apologize to her?
(...)
jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42658684...@heartmdphd.com...
> > GaryG wrote:
> (...)
>
> >> So, you are admitting that you are capable of making a mistake...good.
> >> That's progress, Andy. Now, how about apologizing to Stacey for calling
> >> her
> >> psychotic?
> >
> > In truth, I do not know that she isn't psychotic.
>
> What evidence do you have that she is psychotic?
It seemed that she was hearing my voice over Usenet as it was clear she
was not referring to anything I had written.
Truth is simple.
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<snip>
> > In truth, I do not know that she isn't psychotic.
>
> But, you strongly inferred that she *is* psychotic in your post on Sunday!
> On what basis did you make that public judgement?
It seemed that she was hearing my voice over Usenet as it was clear she
was not referring to anything I had written.
Truth is simple.
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:426568AC...@heartmdphd.com...
> (...)
>
> >> I'm sorry my words are so
> >> troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and snipping
> >> my
> >> posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly fascinating
> >> insight into your mental makeup.
> >
> > Sorry my snipping your words bother you so much. Ime, self-worshippers
> > tend to believe that what they write is **sacred** (to themselves).
>
> At least Gary didn't write a FAQ about himself.
In truth, the FAQs on my web site are not about me.
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
GaryG
> GaryG wrote:
> >
> > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> > news:42658684...@heartmdphd.com...
>
> <snip>
> > > In truth, I do not know that she isn't psychotic.
> >
> > But, you strongly inferred that she *is* psychotic in your post on
Sunday!
> > On what basis did you make that public judgement?
>
> It seemed that she was hearing my voice over Usenet as it was clear she
> was not referring to anything I had written.
Andy, you tried to assert that before. Unfortunately for you, "the truth is
simple" (as you say). Stacey never implied or inferred that she was hearing
your voice at all. And her comments were all directly referring to your own
written words.
Shall we review the sequence of posts from last Sunday?
Andrew wrote:
"You will simply have to wait. You state below that this would not be a
problem for you. Your response was anticipated by my Lord."
Stacey then wrote:
"That you know what is in the mind of god is truly impressive, one might say
megalomanic."
[Referring to what you wrote when you said that her response was
"anticipated by my Lord".]
Then, Andrew wrote:
"In truth, I am unable to read my Lord's mind."
Then, Stacey wrote:
"Yet you said you did know what was in its mind. I wonder why that was?"
[Again, referring directly to your words from the two previous posts.]
At which point you appeared to get irritated, and suggested she was mentally
ill by writing:
"Your belief that you have been hearing my voice suggests that you might be
psychotic. Are you taking medications for schizophrenia?"
Andrew, the evidence is very clear here. You lost your temper, and
disparaged Stacey. In the process, you overstepped your usual
passive-agressive bounds of conduct. That's OK...we all do it from time to
time. But, when we insult another person, whether due to a
misunderstanding, or because we simply lost our temper, an apology is in
order.
BTW - I see that you found it necessary to once again snip the majority of
my previous post, leaving only the one small part you felt comfortable
responding to. That is intellectually dishonest, and cowardly. But, it's
understandable given the rigidity of your thought processes (where, to admit
an error, or offer a simple apology is unthinkable).
Fortunately, the truth is easy for all to discern. Your silence in this
matter speaks loudly enough for all to hear (...please note, I'm writing
metaphorically here :-) ).
GG
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:4265D384...@heartmdphd.com...
> > GaryG wrote:
> > >
> > > "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> > > news:42658684...@heartmdphd.com...
> >
> > <snip>
> > > > In truth, I do not know that she isn't psychotic.
> > >
> > > But, you strongly inferred that she *is* psychotic in your post on
> Sunday!
> > > On what basis did you make that public judgement?
> >
> > It seemed that she was hearing my voice over Usenet as it was clear she
> > was not referring to anything I had written.
>
> Andy, you tried to assert that before. Unfortunately for you, "the truth is
> simple" (as you say). Stacey never implied or inferred that she was hearing
> your voice at all. And her comments were all directly referring to your own
> written words.
>
> Shall we review the sequence of posts from last Sunday?
Certainly.
> Andrew wrote:
>
> "You will simply have to wait. You state below that this would not be a
> problem for you. Your response was anticipated by my Lord."
Yes, my Lord guided my writing so that what was written would have
maximal effect by showing He has foreknowledge of what Stacy would
write.
> Stacey then wrote:
>
> "That you know what is in the mind of god is truly impressive, one might say
> megalomanic."
> [Referring to what you wrote when you said that her response was
> "anticipated by my Lord".]
[That would be **your** belief without any facts in evidence]
> Then, Andrew wrote:
>
> "In truth, I am unable to read my Lord's mind."
And this remains the truth.
> Then, Stacey wrote:
>
> "Yet you said you did know what was in its mind. I wonder why that was?"
> [Again, referring directly to your words from the two previous posts.]
[Again, this would be **your** belief without any facts in evidence]
> At which point you appeared to get irritated,
As if you had the ability to see into my heart.
> and suggested she was mentally ill by writing:
>
> "Your belief that you have been hearing my voice suggests that you might be
> psychotic. Are you taking medications for schizophrenia?"
Speaking as a physician, it remains a possibility.
> Andrew, the evidence is very clear here.
That would be your judgment.
> You lost your temper,
In truth, I did not.
> and disparaged Stacey.
As if asking a question were disparagement.
> In the process, you overstepped your usual
> passive-agressive bounds of conduct.
It seems you suffer from the delusion that you are a psychiatrist. Are
you taking medications for this, Gary?
> That's OK...
It seems that your medications are not OK.
Would suggest that you inform your doctor(s) regarding their loss of
efficacy.
> we all do it from time to time.
Your informing your doctor(s) about your problems with your medications
should occur more regularly.
> But, when we insult another person, whether due to a
> misunderstanding, or because we simply lost our temper, an apology is in
> order.
"The untruthful often are put off by the truth. This does not require an
apology from the truthful."
> BTW - I see that you found it necessary to once again snip the majority of
> my previous post, leaving only the one small part you felt comfortable
> responding to.
I do as my Lord instructs.
> That is intellectually dishonest, and cowardly.
"Doing as the Lord instructs is obedience to the Lord."
> But, it's
> understandable given the rigidity of your thought processes (where, to admit
> an error, or offer a simple apology is unthinkable).
"There is no error in doing as the Lord instructs."
> Fortunately, the truth is easy for all to discern.
Fortune is powerless to help you here either the win this argument or to
discern the truth. All that you have written was anticipated by the
Lord, Who is the truth.
"Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."
Thankfully, Lord Jesus Christ is the way, **the truth**, and the life.
> Your silence in this
> matter speaks loudly enough for all to hear (...please note, I'm writing
> metaphorically here :-) ).
The Lord would have me write the following to inform you who should
receive credit for your being soundly defeated here:
"The LORD is my rock, my fortress and my deliverer;
3 my God is my rock, in whom I take refuge, my shield and the horn of my
salvation. He is my stronghold, my refuge and my savior- from violent
men You save me.
4 I call to the LORD , Who is worthy of praise, and I am saved from my
enemies.
5 "The waves of death swirled about me; the torrents of destruction
overwhelmed me.
6 The cords of the grave coiled around me; the snares of death
confronted me.
7 In my distress I called to the LORD ; I called out to my God. From His
temple he heard my voice; my cry came to His ears.
8 "The earth trembled and quaked, the foundations of the heavens shook;
they trembled because He was angry.
9 Smoke rose from His nostrils; consuming fire came from His mouth,
burning coals blazed out of it.
10 He parted the heavens and came down; dark clouds were under His feet.
11 He mounted the cherubim and flew; He soared on the wings of the wind.
12 He made darkness his canopy around Him- the dark rain clouds of the
sky.
13 Out of the brightness of His presence bolts of lightning blazed
forth.
14 The LORD thundered from heaven; the voice of the Most High resounded.
15 He shot arrows and scattered the enemies, bolts of lightning and
routed them.
16 The valleys of the sea were exposed and the foundations of the earth
laid bare at the rebuke of the LORD, at the blast of breath from His
nostrils.
17 "He reached down from on high and took hold of me; He drew me out of
deep waters.
18 He rescued me from my powerful enemy, from my foes, who were too
strong for me.
19 They confronted me in the day of my disaster, but the LORD was my
support.
20 He brought me out into a spacious place; He rescued me because he
delighted in me.
21 "The LORD has dealt with me according to my righteousness; according
to the cleanness of my hands He has rewarded me.
22 For I have kept the ways of the LORD; I have not done evil by turning
from my God.
23 All His laws are before me; I have not turned away from His decrees.
24 I have been blameless before Him and have kept myself from sin.
25 The LORD has rewarded me according to my righteousness, according to
my cleanness in His sight.
26 "To the faithful You show yourself faithful, to the blameless You
show yourself blameless,
27 to the pure You show Yourself pure, but to the crooked you show
Yourself shrewd.
28 You save the humble, but Your eyes are on the haughty to bring them
low.
29 You are my lamp, O LORD; the LORD turns my darkness into light.
30 With your help I can advance against a troop; with my God I can scale
a wall.
31 "As for God, His way is perfect; the Word of the LORD is flawless.
He is a shield for all who take refuge in him.
32 For Who is God besides the LORD? And Who is the Rock except our God?
33 It is God who arms me with strength and makes my way perfect.
34 He makes my feet like the feet of a deer; He enables me to stand on
the heights.
35 He trains my hands for battle; my arms can bend a bow of bronze.
36 You give me Your shield of victory; You stoop down to make me great.
37 You broaden the path beneath me, so that my ankles do not turn.
38 "I pursued my enemies and crushed them; I did not turn back till they
were destroyed.
39 I crushed them completely, and they could not rise; they fell
beneath my feet.
40 You armed me with strength for battle; You made my adversaries bow at
my feet.
41 You made my enemies turn their backs in flight, and I destroyed my
foes.
42 They cried for help, but there was no one to save them- to the LORD ,
but He did not answer.
43 I beat them as fine as the dust of the earth; I pounded and trampled
them like mud in the streets.
44 "You have delivered me from the attacks of my people; you have
preserved me as the head of nations. People I did not know are subject
to me,
45 and foreigners come cringing to me; as soon as they hear me, they
obey me.
46 They all lose heart; they come trembling from their strongholds.
47 "The LORD lives! Praise be to my Rock! Exalted be God, the Rock, my
Savior!
48 He is the God who avenges me, Who puts the nations under me,
49 who sets me free from my enemies. You exalted me above my foes; from
violent men You rescued me.
50 Therefore I will praise You, O LORD , among the nations; I will sing
praises to Your name.
51 He gives His king great victories; He shows unfailing kindness to His
anointed, to David and his descendants forever."
"Those who are reborn through Lord Jesus Christ, Who is descended from
David, are His descendants forever."
All praises belong to the Lord, Whom I love with all my heart, soul,
mind, and strength :-)
GaryG
in detail..
Your own words have very clearly shown us all that you are completely and
utterly rigid in your thought processes. Despite the fact that you insulted
a woman (on a Sunday!), you remain incapable of offering a simple apology
for your actions, and will go to any lengths necessary to avoid admitting
you made an error (including: invoking God and Jesus, feigning ignorance,
snipping messages to alter their meaning, and inferring that the other party
is mentally ill).
Thanks to your participation in this thread, you have provided all of Usenet
with a fascinating exploration into the mindset of a "true believer". For
providing us these insights into your odd mental processes, I thank you.
BTW - as for your assertion below that questions cannot be insults ("as if
asking a question were disparagement"):
When did you stop beating your wife?
GG
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:42663A3F...@heartmdphd.com...
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Sorry for the top-post, but I see no purpose in continuing this discussion
> in detail..
It is my Lord Who has vanquished you.
> Your own words have very clearly shown us all that you are completely and
> utterly rigid in your thought processes.
Sorry my choice to stick with the truth bothers you so terribly.
> Despite the fact that you insulted
> a woman (on a Sunday!), you remain incapable of offering a simple apology
> for your actions, and will go to any lengths necessary to avoid admitting
> you made an error (including: invoking God and Jesus, feigning ignorance,
> snipping messages to alter their meaning, and inferring that the other party
> is mentally ill).
"Every day is a good day for the truth."
"The untruthful often are put off by the truth. This does not require an
apology from the truthful."
> Thanks to your participation in this thread, you have provided all of Usenet
> with a fascinating exploration into the mindset of a "true believer". For
> providing us these insights into your odd mental processes, I thank you.
Your feigned thanks betrays your despair, which will likely be
everlasting for you unless you choose to make the **right** choice.
> BTW - as for your assertion below that questions cannot be insults ("as if
> asking a question were disparagement"):
>
> When did you stop beating your wife?
I have not ever beaten my wife (see how easy things are for the
truthful).
Truth is simple.
You would have known this had you been able to discern it.
> GG
For this, you remain in my prayers, dear Gary whom I love in Lord Jesus'
most holy and precious name. May you someday make the **right** choice.
Here's how:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129
q.e.d.
"Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."
Thankfully, my Lord and Savior is the way, **the truth**, and the life.
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048
elgoog
Which spirit do you think he spreads? Wherein lies the greater
kindness, now that we all have seen?
+---------------+
| PLEASE |
| DO NOT |
| FEED THE |
| TROLLS |
+---------------+
| |
| |
.\|...||/..
Jeff
(...)
> I do as my Lord instructs.
I disagree. The Lord instructs that you do not bear false witness. When you
snip posts so that the meaning of what another poster said is totally out of
context, you are bearing false witness.
>> That is intellectually dishonest, and cowardly.
>
> "Doing as the Lord instructs is obedience to the Lord."
>
>> But, it's
>> understandable given the rigidity of your thought processes (where, to
>> admit
>> an error, or offer a simple apology is unthinkable).
>
> "There is no error in doing as the Lord instructs."
>
>> Fortunately, the truth is easy for all to discern.
>
> Fortune is powerless to help you here either the win this argument or to
> discern the truth. All that you have written was anticipated by the
> Lord, Who is the truth.
Actually, didn't you say we have free will? Then how will the Lord know what
we will do? He can guess what we might do, but he won't know for certain.
> "Men (and women) can't win arguments... The truth **wins** arguments."
It would be better if this were the case that you don't misrepresent what
other people say or snip things without indicating that fact. The truth of
what they say tends to come out (I mean it is so obvious what you are doing,
any person who is able to think for himself can see it.)
Jeff
(...) <- indicates stuff was snipped.
Jeff
"GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message
> Sorry for the top-post, but I see no purpose in continuing this discussion
> in detail..
>
> Your own words have very clearly shown us all that you are completely and
> utterly rigid in your thought processes.
Actually, I don't see much evidence of thought processes. Just paroting.
> Despite the fact that you insulted
> a woman (on a Sunday!), you remain incapable of offering a simple apology
> for your actions, and will go to any lengths necessary to avoid admitting
> you made an error (including: invoking God and Jesus, feigning ignorance,
> snipping messages to alter their meaning, and inferring that the other
> party
> is mentally ill).
Perhaps his "thought processes" are too rigit for him to even realize he
made an error.
It kind of reminds me of when I spilled a little cheese on my 10-year old
mentees jacket. He totally overreacted. I am not sure he ever figured it
out. Of course, his excuse is that he is 10 years old. I don't know see that
Andrew has one.
> Thanks to your participation in this thread, you have provided all of
> Usenet
> with a fascinating exploration into the mindset of a "true believer". For
> providing us these insights into your odd mental processes, I thank you.
Odd is right.
Jeff
Jeff
> Jeff wrote:
>>
>> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
>> news:426568AC...@heartmdphd.com...
>> (...)
>>
>> >> I'm sorry my words are so
>> >> troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and
>> >> snipping
>> >> my
>> >> posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly
>> >> fascinating
>> >> insight into your mental makeup.
>> >
>> > Sorry my snipping your words bother you so much. Ime, self-worshippers
>> > tend to believe that what they write is **sacred** (to themselves).
>>
>> At least Gary didn't write a FAQ about himself.
>
> In truth, the FAQs on my web site are not about me.
Then there is another Andrew Chung. Or else someone totally misnamed it "The
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ" because it is about someone else.
GaryG
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42663A3F...@heartmdphd.com...
>
> (...)
>
> > I do as my Lord instructs.
>
> I disagree. The Lord instructs that you do not bear false witness. When
you
> snip posts so that the meaning of what another poster said is totally out
of
> context, you are bearing false witness.
But Andy doesn't see it that way, even though many others do. He can lie,
insult, etc. and it's OK, because he thinks he has a special relationship
with God. It's a powerful and dangerous way of thinking (think, Osama Bin
Laden, Eric Rudolph, David Koresh, and others).
It must make for an interesting marital life (poor Mrs. Chung).
GG
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42663A3F...@heartmdphd.com...
>
> (...)
>
> > I do as my Lord instructs.
>
> I disagree.
That is your choice. You have the free will that God has given you.
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A821CEA
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:4265D37E...@heartmdphd.com...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >>
> >> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> >> news:426568AC...@heartmdphd.com...
> >> (...)
> >>
> >> >> I'm sorry my words are so
> >> >> troubling for you, but the way you are avoiding this issue, and
> >> >> snipping
> >> >> my
> >> >> posts (replicated below), is providing all of us with a truly
> >> >> fascinating
> >> >> insight into your mental makeup.
> >> >
> >> > Sorry my snipping your words bother you so much. Ime, self-worshippers
> >> > tend to believe that what they write is **sacred** (to themselves).
> >>
> >> At least Gary didn't write a FAQ about himself.
> >
> > In truth, the FAQs on my web site are not about me.
>
> Then there is another Andrew Chung. Or else someone totally misnamed it "The
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ" because it is about someone else.
What is your question?
At His service,
Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U2A821CEA
Jeff
(...)
>> > In truth, the FAQs on my web site are not about me.
>>
>> Then there is another Andrew Chung. Or else someone totally misnamed it
>> "The
>> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ" because it is about someone else.
>
> What is your question?
There wasn't one. You might notice that I didn't use a question mark (?). I
made what is a called a "statement."
Jeff
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
> news:42678AA8...@heartmdphd.com...
> (...)
>
> >> > In truth, the FAQs on my web site are not about me.
> >>
> >> Then there is another Andrew Chung. Or else someone totally misnamed it
> >> "The
> >> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ" because it is about someone else.
> >
> > What is your question?
>
> There wasn't one. You might notice that I didn't use a question mark (?). I
> made what is a called a "statement."
Comments:
Your first statement is true. There are undoubtably other folks named
Andrew Chung.
Your second statement is not true. The list of FAQs posted here in SMC
by chun...@faqbot.net is clearly about me.
The fact that this list of FAQs posted about me is **not** self-authored
should be obvious to the most casual observer.
Those who feign disbelief about this fact reveal their jaundiced eyes.
Doug Freese
"GaryG" <sorryn...@NOSPAMX.com> wrote in message
news:Ubt9e.4239$f6....@fe04.lga...
> discussion
> in detail..
Why do you even bother to have a discussion with him - he is JPC - just
plain crazy! Place him in your kill file and save the effort.
-DF
Tom Osborn
"Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Then there is another Andrew Chung. Or else someone totally misnamed it "The
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ" because it is about someone else.
Having slightly piqued my curiosity (it's a slow day), I had a quick look at "The" FAQ
and found this comment:
"This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) does provide some truthful answers
(there are versions of this FAQ put out by detractors that are useful only for comparison
purposes)".
Would some kind soul please post some URLs for alternative FAQs. I've decided in
all humility that I am unable to judge Dr Dr Chung from the drivel in the "official"
FAQ. Maybe I'll have a slow day next month and can formulate a position if I read
what other have said/written/asserted/etc.
Or if I have a slow week, maybe I can write a ChungBot to spout the same driven,
but without any need for wetware in the generation process.
T.
Bob (this one)
> "Jeff" <kidsd...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>Then there is another Andrew Chung. Or else someone totally misnamed it "The
>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ" because it is about someone else.
>
> Having slightly piqued my curiosity (it's a slow day), I had a quick look at "The" FAQ
> and found this comment:
>
> "This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) does provide some truthful answers
> (there are versions of this FAQ put out by detractors that are useful only for comparison
> purposes)".
>
> Would some kind soul please post some URLs for alternative FAQs.
I don't think it's on any websites. It seems to have started as a bit of
prodding at Chung and developed from there. The really funny part is
that whoever wrote it invented a "faqbot" which Chung appropriated when
he registered it anonymously.
I think if you Google, you'll find lots of them, mostly the ones that
Chung has written.
> I've decided in
> all humility that I am unable to judge Dr Dr Chung from the drivel in the "official"
> FAQ. Maybe I'll have a slow day next month and can formulate a position if I read
> what other have said/written/asserted/etc.
>
> Or if I have a slow week, maybe I can write a ChungBot to spout the same driven,
> but without any need for wetware in the generation process.
It's all formula anyway.
Anyway, here's one copy of it from a file of mine. I don't know if this
was the last one posted or not. I thought it was funny at the time, so I
saved it. It's a lot more work than I can imagine wasting on him.
-------------------------------------------------------
-------- Original Message --------
Subject: A. B. "Weasel" Chung FAQ, Issue 4.0
Date: Mon, 16 Feb 2004 06:01:11 -0500
From: Weasel Chung FAQ <chun...@faqbot.net>
Organization: Chungbusters
Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
(Note: Because Dr. Chung continues to flood s.m.c. with forgeries,
this FAQ has been reissued with a title less susceptible to forgery.
The authors regret the necessity to take such a step.)
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 4.0, February, 2004 |
---------------------------------
Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) are often puzzled
and troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the
controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions)
attempts to provide an answer.
The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions
and answers. For those who don't wish to read the whole FAQ, the
following summary is provided.
Note: Since this FAQ first appeared in January of 2004, Dr. Chung
forged his own "Issue 2" of the FAQ on February 3, 2004:
Message-ID: <12042dd2fa45f132...@news.teranews.com>
As a courtesy to Dr. Chung, his forged version of the FAQ (Version
2.0) is accepted and included here verbatim, identified by braces
{}. The reader may judge for himself whether Dr. Chung's version
refutes or reinforces the points made in this FAQ.
Dr. Chung has continued to forge this FAQ and to flood s.m.c with
the forgeries. The reader should have no difficulty recognizing the
forgeries for the self-serving lies that they are. The fact that
Dr. Chung engages in such a deceit reveals more about Dr. Chung than
it does about his critics.
Summary
-------
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing
in cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.
{Chung: "The controversy arises from Dr. Chung being Christian"}
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung's other behaviors on s.m.c.,
in particular:
o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular
interpretation of Christianity, but also to disparage and
attack anyone with a different interpretation or different
religion.
{Chung: "He publically [sic] professes to have accepted
Christ as his Lord and Savior."}
o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet
(2PD) and, in fact, cross posts this information to other
groups in order to gain more exposure.
{Chung: "He freely helps people to lose weight in an
altruistic fashion."}
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical
opinions, he attacks his challengers as "obsessive
anti-Christians", "libelers", "homosexuals", "pedophiles",
"people who can't understand English", etc.
{Chung: "When attacked on the above issues, he turns the
other cheek."}
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his
challengers in order to "get the dirt" on them and smear
their reputations.
{Chung: "When challenged about his faith, he witnesses in
civil discussions."}
o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible,
religious mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem
arguments, and other such disreputable, unethical, and
unprofessional tactics.
{Chung: "When insulted for his faith, he considers himself
blessed."}
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the
Gift of Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving
anything but humbly.
{Chung: "He remains truthful despite being libeled and
defamed."}
o He uses a shill who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to
avoid killfiles. Mu's job is to troll other newsgroups and,
when he gets a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c.
so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously claim to be "only
responding" to a cross post. Whereas Dr. Chung has to be
somewhat careful what he says and so attacks primarily
through insinuation and innuendo, Mu's tactics are blunt and
direct like those of a playground bully.
{Chung: "Other Christians have affirmed his faith in Christ."}
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung's egregious
behavior on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can
be verified in the Google archives.
The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does?
Many people provide free medical advice on the Internet. How does
one know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person
giving the advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor
shouldn't that be enough? Unfortunately, no.
{Chung: "Yes, it should be. Medical education is enough to assure
good information. Knowledge is knowledge. Experience adds to
knowledge. Dr. Chung has both. Dr. Chung consistently demonstrates
the breadth of his knowledge. This is archived many times over in
Google."}
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. If
facts alone were all that were required, we could replace Physicians
with Medical Encyclopedias. Knowledge must be tempered with
judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If
someone consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack
these qualities, how much credence should be given to their medical
advice?
People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person
purporting to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false
sense of security simply because someone displays an MD after their
name. It is the intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough
information to allow them to make an informed decision.
{Chung: "People arrive in this group looking for help. Dr. Chung
has graciously provided this over several years."}
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly disturbed
behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he was sitting in the
corner sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth, playing with
his feces, or babbling incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself
together and calls you into his office. How comfortable are you
going to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
s.m.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have been here
a while, you have observed his behavior. If you are new, this FAQ
will give you some background. The decision is yours.
List of Questions Answered
--------------------------
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
3. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem With That?
5. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
6. But I'm a Christian Too!
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
8. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
16. Who is Mu?
17. What is Mu's Role?
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
20. What is "Hissing"
1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
--------------------------------------
The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a
licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta,
Georgia, USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains
a link to a website which is consistent with his posts.
It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and
so caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that
the poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr.
Andrew B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or
has lost his license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct.
This FAQ does not attempt to address those claims one way or the
other. The reader with an interest in these matters can easily find
the relevant discussions archived in Google Groups.
This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts
itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken
on his "true" identity.
2. What is the Charter of s.m.c.?
----------------------------------
"The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
communication between health care providers, scientists and other
individuals with interest in cardiovascular field. Such
communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
information and knowledge, offer problem solutions and stimulate
research interest.
The sci.med.cardiology newsgroups will welcome participants who are
health care providers, researchers, students or recipients with
interest in the field of cardiovascular problems."
<ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announce.newgroups/sci/sci.med.cardiology>
3. Aren't Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
--------------------------------------------------------
What do you think?
{Chung: "Possibly. See: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp"}
4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What's the Problem With That?
--------------------------------------------------------------
There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate
in s.m.c. are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung
feels compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of
God" in their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity
to "witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim
the "Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.
{Chung: "Some people are fiercely anti-christian."}
When one person insists on introducing his personal religious
interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates
responses from others who feel just as strongly that their
viewpoints are correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of
control, especially given Dr. Chung's intolerant and dismissive
attitude towards beliefs which differ from his. The situation is
further exacerbated by Mu's rabble raising from the sidelines.
There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of
religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and
stick to cardiology in s.m.c. It is a simple matter of respect for
others.
5. But it's Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
-------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes it is. But it offends those who are anti-christian."}
No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone
asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being
anti-Christian.
A quick search of Google will reveal that the vast
majority of Dr. Chung's posts have nothing whatever to do with
cardiology as described in the charter, but instead are religious
rants, religious arguments, arguments about the Two Pound Diet
(see 14 below) or posts of the "Chung macro" (see 19 below).
6. But I'm a Christian Too!
----------------------------
{Chung: "And so you have Christ's promise of eternal life."}
Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for
everything. s.m.c. isn't the place to "witness" or recruit. In
addition, lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists,
Taoists, Hindus, etc. Would s.m.c. be better or worse if they all
emulated Dr. Chung in their proselytizing and recruiting?
Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr.
Chung's pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity.
He is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence
to Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing
his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false
witness" and true Christians should be concerned.
As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr.
Chung rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site.
He showed a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and
his family, even when challenged to do so.
As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign
against a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a
homosexual author with the same first name and then insinuated that
the poster and anyone who agreed with him were engaged in a
homosexual relationship. Ask yourself if this the brand of
Christianity you identify with.
In still yet another example, when an anonymous post was made
implying that one of his critics was a pedophile, Dr. Chung, rather
than condemning such a despicable and outrageous charge, attempted
to get more information.
7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
--------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Well, Why Not Just Ignore his Christian nature?
-----------------------------------------------
Anti-christians are unable to do that."}
Why should one individual be given carte blanche to violate the
rights of everyone else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the
community to sanction its members. There is nothing "ad hominem"
about challenging inappropriate and antisocial behavior.
8. But Isn't It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free
Medical Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
----------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "It is."}
First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education
alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. If facts alone were
all that were required, we could replace Physicians with Medical
Encyclopedias. Knowledge must be tempered with judgment,
impartiality, integrity, ethics, and professionalism. If someone
consistently demonstrates by their behavior that they lack these
qualities, how much credence should be given to their medical
advice?
Ask yourself this: Suppose you went to see a cardiologist
and, while in the waiting room, observed some clearly disturbed
behavior on his part. Perhaps, for example, he was sitting in the
corner sucking his thumb and rocking back and forth, playing with
his feces, or babbling incoherently. Suddenly, he pulls himself
together and calls you into his office. How comfortable are you
going to be with his advice, even if it is technically correct?
s.m.c is Dr. Chung's "virtual waiting room". If you have been here
a while, you have observed his behavior. If you are new, this FAQ
will give you some background. The decision is yours.
Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is
not simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's
contains a link to a website with the following quote:
"If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
please consider me your best option for a personal heart
advocate. Check out my credentials and my background.
Additional information is available in the protected sections
of this web site. Email me at cardio...@heartmdphd.com to
me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username
and password to allow a preview. The more information you
email, the more likely my decision to send you a temporary
username and password. If you like what you see and learn
from this website and wish to confer with me about your
heart, you or your doctor should email me privately or call
my voicemail at 404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to
see me at my *real* office."
<http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp>
Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key
motivations for participating is s.m.c. is to "witness" and win
converts to his religious beliefs.
9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
Usenet?
------------------------------------------------------------------
An interesting question.
{Chung: "God has blessed him with a quick mind and fast typing
skills."}
10. Won't Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
--------------------------------------------------
Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
{Chung: "No. But it will give him the extraordinary opportunity to
glorify God."}
s.m.c. is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr.
Chung misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This
is compounded by Dr. Chung's need to "get in the last word" and Mu's
provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will
usually be answered.
Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in s.m.c.
He is not even the only doctor who participates in s.m.c. However,
the controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that
he is the "only game in town".
Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other
physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by
him, and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung's
medical opinion might be in error or at least not the only one
generally held. Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can
expect a series of increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats
of libel suits.
11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
Challenge Dr. Chung?
--------------------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes."}
An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster (with
the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or the Two Pound
Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung to introduce these
topics, but not acceptable for others to respond?
In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word". Dr.
Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone in this
respect.
12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
----------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Anti-christian folks can't seem to help themselves."}
You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which
attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on the
adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the Two Pound
Diet because you are anti-Christian".
When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what someone
else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to call them on it.
It is a legitimate social sanction.
There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal attacks and
insults on both sides. While we can all wish it weren't so, it is
simply human nature when an argument becomes heated or the other
person is obviously not arguing in good faith. If you are
distressed by this, see the next question.
13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
--------------------------------
{Chung: "Would suggest you killfile the anti-christians. You won't
see any as [sic] hominems from Dr. Chung."}
There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can change
the TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile a poster
or thread you don't want to see. See the manual that came with your
Usenet reader for directions on how to do it.
Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer
picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on - both
the good and the bad.
14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
-------------------------------
{Chung: "See: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp"}
The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It's only
rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That's
it. Doesn't matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old
man; a 5' 2" woman or a 7' man; a weight lifter or a mattress
tester. Two pounds. That's it. No more, less if you want. One
size fits all.
Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two
pounds of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two
pounds of chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn't matter. Mix
and match. Just keep it under two pounds.
Dr. Chung's claim is that this magical weight of food, this
universal gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and
maintain their ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim:
none. The proof he offers: none. Studies supporting this claim:
none. Nutritional explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none.
And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on
other issues.
15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
---------------------------------------------------
{Chung: "Yes. It cures [sic] Metabolic Syndrome (MetS) which
predicts cardiovascular morbidity and mortality."}
Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for
heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On
Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is
discussion of any other diet.
As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the
Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls
other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for
opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross
post the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups
and have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them,
participants of these groups are understandably angered when it
happens yet again; and, because of Mu's cross-posting, all their
anger spills back into s.m.c.
Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung's habit of
researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his
responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to
frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a
"convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent.
Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in s.m.c.
The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for
anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics. If
it is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced by Dr.
Chung.
16. Who is Mu?
--------------
{Chung: "A Christian."}
Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He
postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really
knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad
Cop" in the Chung - Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes
in the short, nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has
no reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and
offensive.
Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung's
"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and
homophobia in his attacks.
Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he
changes his handle on an almost daily basis.
17. What is Mu's Role?
----------------------
{Chung: "God only knows."}
Mu's role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction,
to cross-post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can
hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the
Two Pound Diet should the discussion flag.
Finally, Mu's role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung
critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr.
Chung. He is Dr. Chung's Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope".
Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason
with him or even have a civil discussion.
Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually
the last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears.
18. Doesn't Dr. Chung Claim to Always Tell The Truth?
-----------------------------------------------------
Yes, he does... repeatedly. However this claim cannot be
reconciled with his behavior on s.m.c.
Dr. Chung has lied repeatedly on Usenet and those lies are
preserved in the Google archives. A few examples:
o Dr. Chung consistently changes other people's words when quoting
them in a response to a post to make it appear they said
something different than what they actually said.
o Dr. Chung consistently posts a macro (see below) which states
that he is responding to a cross-post because the person he
is responding to has not requested that he trim the
headers, even when this request has been explicitly made.
o More recently Dr. Chung has begun forging posts as his bogus
"Version 2" of this FAQ illustrates. Unfortunately for
him the attempts are so amateurish and the language so
self-serving and lame that there is no doubt as to the
authorship.
These are only examples of Dr. Chung's explicit lies. They do not
include lies told through dissembling, innuendo, disingenuousness,
employment of twisted trope's, and other "word games" which he
plays.
19. What is the "Chung macro"?
------------------------------
The "Chung macro" is an approximately 4.5 kilobyte, mind-numbing
diatribe which Dr. Chung attaches as a response to any post he
doesn't like. It includes Chung's unstinting praise of himself, an
advertisement for the Two Pound Diet, an disingenuous protest that
he is "only responding to a cross-post", and gratuitous slaps at
all his critics.
It is called a "macro" because it can be saved and attached to a
message with a single keystroke. Usually, the content of the
original post is either "snipped" so that only Dr. Chung's diatribe
appears or the words of the original poster are modified to say
something which pleases Dr. Chung. Common decency is not
Dr. Chung's concern here.
When the "Chung macro" appears in a thread, it is a sure sign that
a criticism has struck home and/or Dr. Chung has run out of
arguments or anything intelligent to say. Instead he laboriously
and obsessively attaches the "Chung macro" to each and every
message in the thread. If someone responds to the "Chung macro",
he attaches the macro to the response and so on ad infinitum and
ad nauseam.
This generates considerable anger in the victimized newsgroups to
Dr. Chung's apparent glee. Requests to stop are mocked and
ignored. Eventually, people become sick of it and just stop
responding: Dr. Chung has achieved his objective of shutting down
the now objectionable thread... which was probably initiated by Mu
in the first place.
20. What is "Hissing"?
--------------------------
"Hissing" is Dr. Chung's term for something he doesn't want to hear,
particularly a criticism or a correction of one of his errors. He
frequently inserts it in place of other people's words when he
quotes them but is too lazy or unimaginative to change their words
to his liking.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under advisement.
Wayne Crannell
--
Wayne Crannell
Sherman, TX
248/141 10/27/01