Off topic
Paul Moro
Chee Jiao
Paul Moro wrote:
> Over the past year this group has tripled off topic discussion, why is it no longer cardo all the time?
Dr. Ernst Primer (again)
Paul Moro wrote:
> Over the past year this group has tripled off topic discussion, why is it no longer cardo all the time?
(snip footers)
---------------------------------
| 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: <12042dd2fa45f132e7b81c7f37127...@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 cardiolog...@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.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Over the past year this group has tripled off topic discussion, why is it no longer cardo all the time?
Demons are irresistibly drawn to the light of the truth as creatures of
darkness flying toward the fires of heaven that will annihilate them
because they no longer have free will of their own:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/48107bc81f0012a7?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b06d430125ef165c?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f746b071b1d4e13a?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bb3fdb0e9180d434?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3d546d49b43092e3?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8a1c3fe4ca66e3f2?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4f5d01eb132c4744?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/34dd80999b81bff0?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cccab8bf544e08c7?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1d69e3bd116f1441?
Meanwhile, fires from heaven continue to consume the AUK netcabal.com
web site:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/1348055d48784253?
... along with its demon:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2ff9b828a563194e?
In the interim, the brethren of LORD Jesus Christ continue to be
blessed:
http://MabletonGA.OurLittle.net/Guarantee
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water curing our
diabetes, depression, anxiety or panic so that we can love our
neighbors a little more and LORD Jesus Christ a lot more, dear neighbor
Paul whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
Pastor Kutchie
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Paul Moro wrote:
> > Over the past year this group has tripled off topic discussion, why is it no longer cardo all the time?
>
> Demons are irresistibly drawn to the light of the truth as creatures of
> darkness flying toward the fires of heaven that will annihilate them
> because they no longer have free will of their own:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/48107bc81f0012a7?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/b06d430125ef165c?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f746b071b1d4e13a?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/bb3fdb0e9180d434?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3d546d49b43092e3?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8a1c3fe4ca66e3f2?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/4f5d01eb132c4744?
>
Are all fans of Terry Pratchett demons, just like all fans of The Who?
Oh! and it is nasty to quote people having failed to address what they
are saying. Not that I'd expect a psychopath like you to understand
that.
I KILLED YOUR GOD....IT WAS EASY!
none here as usual.