Suggestion to Dr. Chung
Bob
enjoyed your posts. Thank you. Keep them up.
However, I have a suggestion for dealing with critics.
IGNOR THEM!!
Establish a "kill file" for their names in your news reader. If your
reader does not have this capability, I suggest Agent at
www.forteinc.com. (I will do that if I get "flamed" for this post.)
There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
raise your blood pressure). You cannot win a pissing contest.
Bob Pastorio
> As a recent heart patient and a new reader of this group, I have
> enjoyed your posts. Thank you. Keep them up.
>
> However, I have a suggestion for dealing with critics.
The tone of this seems to assume that Chung is some innocent beset by
wolves. Not much could be further from the truth. And the vast
preponderance of the criticism is very telling. Chung's malicious
innuendoes and shabby "diagnoses" of people's actions and motivations
also reflect either inadvertent incompetence or deliberate deceit.
Either way, it's bad stuff.
> IGNOR THEM!!
>
> Establish a "kill file" for their names in your news reader. If your
> reader does not have this capability, I suggest Agent at
> www.forteinc.com. (I will do that if I get "flamed" for this post.)
>
> There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
> raise your blood pressure). You cannot win a pissing contest.
Your newness means you haven't much history watching Chung do his
thing. Were it simply a matter of his being bothered by other posters
with no contribution from him, your solution would be reasonable. But
you need to see what he does. He trolls groups and excuses himself by
offering a self-forgiving definition of what a troll is. He,
astonishingly, lies with the evidence of his deceit right there in
plain sight.
Look over his web site and check his "testimonials" that are there
with no one's permission and mostly don't endorse what he's peddling
with his 2 pound diet. Look at the other pages. See about stalking.
If Chung were trying to be an honest man, there would be no
antagonism. But the evidence is irrefutable that it isn't the case.
Chung obviously believes that his dissembling is garnering "victory"
for him against some forces of evil, critics who attack him in his
martyrdom. Watching him compare himself to Christ is especially
gratuitous. Given his fanatical, fundamentalist religious zealotry,
it's hard to imagine that he isn't like that in all aspects of his life.
His combinations of smugness and satisfaction, arrogance and hubris,
deceit and evasion and a paltry scientific or evidentiary basis for
his "diet" which he relentlessly promotes create a setting wherein his
flaws, failures and faux pas became rational areas for dispute. He
offers unsubstantiated opinions as though they were documented. As
though, because he's saying them, they should be accepted
unquestioningly. He hasn't established credentials for integrity or
generosity. Certainly not for Christ-like behavior that he rants about
so often.
Pastorio
Bob
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 16:30:37 -0500, Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net>
wrote:
Bigjon
<< a load of drivel >>
and mine.
--
You can't have it all....
Where would you put it anyway ??
ma...@sorbet.nothere
wrote:
>You are now in my "kill file".
If you kill all those who disagree with Chung, you may find that most
of the useful information is in your kill file. :-)
Matt
Bogie
>
> >
> There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
> raise your blood pressure). You cannot win a pissing contest.
I agree. I come here with fear in my heart(NO pun intended),looking
for life saving info. Sometimes it's hard to read between the lines.
Please and thanx, Bogie
Paul E. Lehmann
"Bob" <rogodwin...@charter.net> wrote in message
news:55uksvc5fs4ojk03d...@4ax.com...
> You are now in my "kill file".
Pastorio is 100% correct.
It is your loss if you choose to ignore him.
Bob Pastorio
It's why almost everybody came here.
Pastorio
Bob
posting are "discussions" with Chung. For example, you have only one
posting (Niacin) that are unrelated to Chung.
Bob
with him. However, when I looked at a large number of his posts I view
them in total as being of positive benefit to me. I cannot say the
same for most of his critics.
I would get more out of this news group, without this "pissing
contest".
JUST MY OPINION !
On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 01:16:57 GMT, Jim Chinnis
<jchi...@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
>Bob <rogodwin...@charter.net> wrote in part:
>I also enjoy having Dr. Chung's views and expertise here. And I've enjoyed the
>healthy exchange of views on cardiology here.
>
>But Dr. Chung is part of the problem, too.
kahout
Blanchard. I hope the tone of the newsgroup has not led him away.
Kevin
"Bob Pastorio" <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
news:vsl59a2...@corp.supernews.com...
francispoon
> Bob wrote:
>
> > As a recent heart patient and a new reader of this group, I have
> > enjoyed your posts. Thank you. Keep them up.
> >
> > However, I have a suggestion for dealing with critics.
>
> The tone of this seems to assume that Chung is some innocent beset by
> wolves.
Regardless who is innocent or guilty, right or wrong, good or bad....,
if each participant made an effort to avoid the 'last word', the
abominable post would just end right here.
FP
=================
ooog
news:d49lsv0sm5c3et0bm...@4ax.com:
> I did not mean to imply that Chung is perfect or that I always agree
> with him. However, when I looked at a large number of his posts I view
> them in total as being of positive benefit to me. I cannot say the
> same for most of his critics.
>
> I would get more out of this news group, without this "pissing
> contest".
>
> JUST MY OPINION !
>
And I agree with you (if that helps ;)
Bob Pastorio
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vskocpl...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>>Bob wrote:
>>
>>
>>>As a recent heart patient and a new reader of this group, I have
>>>enjoyed your posts. Thank you. Keep them up.
>>>
>>>However, I have a suggestion for dealing with critics.
>>
>>The tone of this seems to assume that Chung is some innocent beset by
>>wolves.
>
>
> Regardless who is innocent or guilty, right or wrong, good or bad....,
> if each participant made an effort to avoid the 'last word', the
> abominable post would just end right here.
If it were as trivial as you make it sound - just kids shouting at
each other in the schoolyard - then it's an easy call. If that were
all it's been, then everybody can settle down and have a beer
together. It isn't that.
Go look at Chung's web site. See how many names are there with
accusations and aspersions attached. See how many "testimonials" are
there from people who don't want to be there and who aren't really
endorsing his efforts and thinking.
See how shabbily he has treated sincere posters to this NG. Look at
his shameful discourse with Mozz. Likewise Dr. Blanchard. Matti
Narkia. Others who asked him questions about his 2 pound diet only to
find themselves on the receiving end of abuse, smarmy attempts at
manipulation and generally dishonorable tactics. Some have tried to
offer constructive information and Chung almost invariably finds some
reason to mock them, scorn them, trivialize them and their posts.
Matti Narkia offered more scientific data in a matter of weeks than
Chung has in toto.
It's like some uncivilized dog that has peed on all the surrounding
fence posts and who won't let any others come onto his territory
unless they do it his way. Otherwise, they're subjected to the "Chung
treatment" of interlinear response to their posts that obfuscate,
avoid, evade and otherwise create a cloud of words that serve Chung's
apparent purpose of being this big dog in a trivially small yard. He's
like a demented terrier that cannot let go and must escalate the
ugliness until it's sheer madness, all semblance of communication
irrevocably destroyed.
His religious rantings only serve to color the landscape even further.
He simultaneously claims to be a scientist and shows himself to be a
fanatical religious fundamentalist. The two are incompatible. The
scientist is, by definition, always questing for testable physical
reality. Observe a phenomenon, hypothesize about it and test it. A
constant series of examinations to arrive at a documentable, testable,
repeatable result.
Chung's diet has no such basis, neither does his religious zealotry
which he equates with "knowledge." He *believes* and that's supposed
to be enough and that's not subject to debate, questioning or support.
He's apparently incapable of seeing the difference between faith and
fact and forges ahead so frantically that he seems not to notice that
he's making the most egregious logical and definitional blunders.
Having done so and having had it shown to him, he continues to insist
that he's correct. Never once, even after some rather unarguable proof
to the contrary, has Chung conceded a point, admitted an error or
credited someone else with being right who didn't absolutely agree
with him.
He calls himself "humble" while showering scorn. While lying. While
practicing the most blatant evasions.
Chung neither turns the other cheek nor does he offer proof for his
contentions. That's failure in both his claimed realms. Couple that
with his demonstrated malice and we're left with the ethically and
morally limited husk of an educated man doing as much or more harm as
he is doing good. He has taken an oath to do no harm.
I very specifically said that if he'd leave me alone and out of his
posts, I'd do the same. He seems to want the strife and triggers it
with what a lawyer would call "fighting words." It's deliberate and
malicious. It's my own opinion that he truly believes himself clever
in his verbal wrangling. That he's somehow triumphing over dark
forces. Apparently he can't see how his actions militate against
taking him seriously.
Pastorio
list...@nospam.net
OK, Let's get it out of our system and move on.
flo...@bigfoot.com
>> I would get more out of this news group, without this "pissing
>> contest".
>>
no knowledge of the 2lb diet. Despite this, I have found that if I
ask a technical question he answers in a professional manner.
Diana
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> As a recent heart patient and a new reader of this group, I have
> enjoyed your posts. Thank you. Keep them up.
You are most welcome :-)
> However, I have a suggestion for dealing with critics.
>
> IGNOR THEM!!
Thanks for the suggestion. You are not alone in making the suggestion
(I get tons of email about it) and I have been listening. Over the
years, I have worked at *restraining* myself from getting the last
word with these "critics." However, I will be the first to admit,
that I actually enjoy being criticized/challenged because it helps me
grow in both knowledge and character. So this is difficult for me. I
still sense that I am better at doctoring when I am able to accept
criticism from others.
> Establish a "kill file" for their names in your news reader. If your
> reader does not have this capability, I suggest Agent at
> www.forteinc.com. (I will do that if I get "flamed" for this post.)
Actually, I have a killfile but I save it for anonymous folks whose
posts clearly have no redeeming value without any hope of change and
truly are a waste of time to read..
> There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
> raise your blood pressure).
Imho, makes me a better person.
> You cannot win a pissing contest.
This is not about winning or losing.
I appreciate your suggestion.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Ron Ritzman
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>> There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
>> raise your blood pressure).
>
>Imho, makes me a better person.
What makes you a better person, engaging in dialogs or having your
blood pressure raised? *grin*.
--
Ron Ritzman
http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart
Smart people can figure out my email address
Steve
(in message <icfksvspb7ns41ll0...@4ax.com>):
The charter of the group is to discuss Cardiology. I have yet to see
anyone criticize Chung when he stays On Topic. It is Chung who
introduces the Off Topic Two Pound Diet and the Off Topic Religious
threads. You may not realize this, since you are a new reader... a
quick google search, however, will demonstrate it.
Is that "OK" with you? If so, why then is it not "OK" for critics to
respond?
Steve
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On 1 Dec 2003 09:37:30 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> >> There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
> >> raise your blood pressure).
> >
> >Imho, makes me a better person.
>
> What makes you a better person, engaging in dialogs or having your
> blood pressure raised? *grin*.
(using the 2PD approach keeps me from having high blood pressure :-)
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
francispoon
Nevertheless, if what needs to be done or said had already been done
and said, an abrupt withdrawal from this endless contest would carry
your point across even more powerfully than if the contest were
allowed to be continued, in my humble opinion.
FP
====================================================
Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vsmdidn...@corp.supernews.com>...
Paul E. Lehmann
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:3FCBD2B4...@heartmdphd.com...
> Ron Ritzman wrote:
>
> > On 1 Dec 2003 09:37:30 -0800, nos...@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B.
> > Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
> >
> > >> There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
> > >> raise your blood pressure).
> > >
> > >Imho, makes me a better person.
> >
> > What makes you a better person, engaging in dialogs or having your
> > blood pressure raised? *grin*.
>
> (using the 2PD approach keeps me from having high blood pressure :-)
>
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
It seems to also have short circuited the neurons in your brain.
ma...@sorbet.nothere
wrote:
>I am only putting names in my file where all or nearly all their
>posting are "discussions" with Chung. For example, you have only one
>posting (Niacin) that are unrelated to Chung.
I hope you found my post of interest. In the past I have had
"discussions" with him, so you probably want to put me in your kill
file.
If you check the archives, you might find that there are quite a few
posts where he has been shown to give information that contradicts
respected medical journal publications. This was brought out in
sometimes extensive "discussions" with Chung. Check for yourself. If
you read these rather than filter them, you might get a much different
picture of his real capabilities. He sounds good, but you might want
to get a second opinion. <grin>
Many doctors post here regularly. There are short, civil interchanges
with a lot of good information brought to the group. But, why do SO
MANY people respond negatively to him? Why do his answers provoke such
endless unproductive discussions? Why is it so hard for SO MANY people
to ignore his provocative answers?
Why is so much of the strife in this group associated with him? Are
ALL those people wrong, and only he is right? Note also how many good
doctors stopped posting here after some unpleasant "discussions" with
Chung.
Here's an alternative to suggesting that he ignore everyone else. If
you could get him to post as these other good doctors did, without the
added provocations and useless junk, there would be FAR fewer problems
in this group. Everyone would benefit.
You'll eliminate a lot of useless junk by killing ALL those people,
but you will also loose a lot of good information. Since this will be
the last post of mine you will read before killfiling me, I hope I did
not offend you by the above. That was not my intention.
Matt
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Thank you very much for having taken your time to explain your view.
> Nevertheless, if what needs to be done or said had already been done
> and said, an abrupt withdrawal from this endless contest would carry
> your point across even more powerfully than if the contest were
> allowed to be continued, in my humble opinion.
>
> FP
> ====================================================
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vsmdidn...@corp.supernews.com>...
...sees this as a contest. I don't.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 18:11:04 -0800, Bob <rogodwin...@charter.net>
> wrote:
>
> >I am only putting names in my file where all or nearly all their
> >posting are "discussions" with Chung. For example, you have only one
> >posting (Niacin) that are unrelated to Chung.
>
> I hope you found my post of interest. In the past I have had
> "discussions" with him, so you probably want to put me in your kill
> file.
>
> If you check the archives, you might find that there are quite a few
> posts where he has been shown to give information that contradicts
> respected medical journal publications.
If that were true, it should be easy for you to provide the Google cites.
> This was brought out in
> sometimes extensive "discussions" with Chung. Check for yourself.
Make it easy for him. Provide the links.
> If
> you read these rather than filter them, you might get a much different
> picture of his real capabilities.
Provide the links and you'll be sure he reads them.
> He sounds good, but you might want
> to get a second opinion. <grin>
Would picture a toothless grin here.
>
>
> Many doctors post here regularly.
There are a few (not many):
(1) Colin Rose, MD - Canadian cardiologist who posts but does not stick
around for discussions.
(2) Terrence Chun, MD - American pediatric cardiologist and
electrophysiologist who answers queries in his area of expertise.
(3) Wayne Howard, MD - American non-invasive cardiologist who will
occasionally make an appearance to recommend folks buy his book but rarely
sticks around for discussion/debate.
(4) Andrew Chung, MD/PhD - American invasive cardiologist. Yours truly
:-)
(5) Patrick Blanchard, MD - American Family Practice physician who made a
brief appearance advocating CIMT measurements in everyone over the age of
30-35 yo.
> There are short, civil interchanges
> with a lot of good information brought to the group. But, why do SO
> MANY people respond negatively to him?
Because I stick around for the discussions?
> Why do his answers provoke such
> endless unproductive discussions?
That would be your opinion.
> Why is it so hard for SO MANY people
> to ignore his provocative answers?
Because they don't killfile me?
>
>
> Why is so much of the strife in this group associated with him?
Truth is unsettling for the untruthful.
> Are
> ALL those people wrong, and only he is right?
This is not about me but about the truth. Perhaps the answer is that too
few care about the truth.
> Note also how many good
> doctors stopped posting here after some unpleasant "discussions" with
> Chung.
Pray tell, how many? Pray tell, who?
>
>
> Here's an alternative to suggesting that he ignore everyone else.
The suggestion was not that I ignore everyone... just folks like you. You
are hardly everyone.
> If
> you could get him to post as these other good doctors did, without the
> added provocations and useless junk, there would be FAR fewer problems
> in this group.
There would be fewer discussions.
> Everyone would benefit.
>
In your world, perhaps.
>
> You'll eliminate a lot of useless junk by killing ALL those people,
> but you will also loose a lot of good information.
That is doubtful.
> Since this will be
> the last post of mine you will read before killfiling me, I hope I did
> not offend you by the above. That was not my intention.
It is not clear what your intention is except perhaps hatemongering.
Bob Pastorio
> francispoon wrote:
>
>>Thank you very much for having taken your time to explain your view.
>>Nevertheless, if what needs to be done or said had already been done
>>and said, an abrupt withdrawal from this endless contest would carry
>>your point across even more powerfully than if the contest were
>>allowed to be continued, in my humble opinion.
>>
>>FP
>>====================================================
>>Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vsmdidn...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
> ...sees this as a contest. I don't.
Chung is once again offering his "diagnosis" of the situation. He's
demonstrated how credible that is, repeatedly. His incompetence at
these "diagnoses" makes me wonder about the rest of his capability to
"diagnose." If his assessments of what impels others and what
motivates people are any indication of his competence levels, poor Chung.
Pastorio speaks out against deceit, fraud, malice and quackery. If the
shoe fits Chung, so be it. He chooses how to act. It's that free will
thing. Unfortunately he chooses to act dishonorably.
Pastorio
ma...@sorbet.nothere
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>It is not clear what your intention is except perhaps hatemongering.
I am certain that you are not clear about my intention, because you
believe that ONLY you know the truth. I'm confident that Bob can do
the research and make his own conclusions in a way that is appropriate
for him.
It is NOT my intention to indulge your insatiable desire to cause
endless strife and conflict in this group. I'm NOT going to feed your
troll. It was fun for a while, but it gets boring rather quickly
because you are so predictable. I'd rather concentrate on helping when
I can.
You will, of course, reply to get in the last word, as always.
<toothless grin, according to you> <and, since you always know the
truth, another BIG toothless grin>
Matt
John9212112
>anyone criticize Chung when he stays On Topic. It is Chung who
>introduces the Off Topic Two Pound Diet and the Off Topic Religious
>threads. You may not realize this, since you are a new reader... a
>quick google search, however, will demonstrate it.
>
>Is that "OK" with you? If so, why then is it not "OK" for critics to
>respond?
>
>Steve
As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of Dr.
Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
I find Dr. Chung's postings to be very interesting and valuable to me
personally and well within the charter of this group. I also find that his
medical advice is well within the limits of modern cardiological practice as I
have experienced it (as a patient). I.e., nothing he has said has surprised me
nor is it different from what I'd expect my own doctors to say. On the other
hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
trolling team.
Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be off
topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease. Clearly
it is. 2PD is a reasonable strategy (one of many) for dealing with the
problem. I have been able to lose about 10 pounds over the last couple of
months using this approach with no pain at all. Other dieting appoaches I've
tried such as low carb (Atkins) only succeeded in aggravating my atrial
fibrillation. 2PD is easy, doesn't require me to do anything special except to
- eat less - and specify quantitatively how much less. I have always eaten a
well balanced diet - my wife is an excellent cook - just too much of it. 2PD
is just what I need. Thanks, Dr. Chung, for thinking of it and for sticking to
your guns here in the newsgroup.
As for the religious threads, it seems to me that they have mostly been started
and fueled by the Trolling Team. I find no fault in Dr. Chung for including
simple blessings in his posts. The long threads are all your fault. You start
them and Dr. Chung responds, etc, etc.
In my opinion there is nothing "fanatical" about Dr. Chung's beliefs as he has
represented them on this newsgroup. The trolling team continuing to make this
assertion only makes you look to be the fanatics.
John
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
John,
Appreciate the vote of support :-)
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Paul E. Lehmann
"John9212112" <john9...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20031204153231...@mb-m25.aol.com...
Time to take your meds. You are delusional.
You have my pitty, neighbor
I will pray for you.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The delusional are the quickest to call others delusional.
>
> You have my pitty, neighbor
>
And, you have my love, neighbor.
> I will pray for you.
It is unlikely that your false god will either hear or doing anything about your
prayer.
From John 14:
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me..."
You remain in my prayers, Mr. Lehman.
Bob Pastorio
>>The charter of the group is to discuss Cardiology. I have yet to see
>>anyone criticize Chung when he stays On Topic. It is Chung who
>>introduces the Off Topic Two Pound Diet and the Off Topic Religious
>>threads. You may not realize this, since you are a new reader... a
>>quick google search, however, will demonstrate it.
>>
>>Is that "OK" with you? If so, why then is it not "OK" for critics to
>>respond?
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of Dr.
> Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
> too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
Wow. "Team Trolling (TM)" is so witty. Just a dazzler of incisive
characterization. Jeez, how come you waited so long to shine your
bright light here, John? The group has had need of your objective
viewpoint and clarity of expression. No, seriously...
> I find Dr. Chung's postings to be very interesting and valuable to me
> personally and well within the charter of this group.
Of course you do. And I bet you're doing the 2PoundPOWDiet, too,
right? No, seriously...
> I also find that his
> medical advice is well within the limits of modern cardiological practice as I
> have experienced it (as a patient). I.e., nothing he has said has surprised me
> nor is it different from what I'd expect my own doctors to say.
So, if it's so tightly hewn to what you already know, why even bother
to see your cardio or read this group? You say you already know it
all. You imply that you know "modern cardiological practice" well
enough to evaluate it, I mean. No, seriously...
> On the other
> hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
> trolling team.
I know what you mean. Not a single bit of information worth pondering
since it's far outside of "modern cardiological practice" and all. No,
seriously...
> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be off
> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease. Clearly
> it is. 2PD is a reasonable strategy (one of many) for dealing with the
> problem. I have been able to lose about 10 pounds over the last couple of
> months using this approach with no pain at all.
10 pounds over a couple months? What were you eating before 2 pounds 3
ounces? I really believe you, John. May I call you John? No, seriously...
> Other dieting appoaches I've
> tried such as low carb (Atkins) only succeeded in aggravating my atrial
> fibrillation.
Damnation if I didn't find the same thing. I got fibrillations all
over my atrium. And in my foyer and all the way across the music room,
down the cellar steps and out the back door. No, seriously...
> 2PD is easy, doesn't require me to do anything special except to
> - eat less - and specify quantitatively how much less. I have always eaten a
> well balanced diet - my wife is an excellent cook - just too much of it. 2PD
> is just what I need. Thanks, Dr. Chung, for thinking of it and for sticking to
> your guns here in the newsgroup.
And rightly so, this praise. Those mountain climbers can thank Chung
for bringing their wisdom to the rest of us. Well, even though they
actually eat from 6000 to 12000 calories a day. And they load up on
food before climbing. And the lose a pound a day which, as we all
know, represents a deficit of approximately 3500 calories daily. John,
may I call you John, you're doing a great service to humankind here.
No, seriously...
> As for the religious threads, it seems to me that they have mostly been started
> and fueled by the Trolling Team. I find no fault in Dr. Chung for including
> simple blessings in his posts.
And rightly so, John. Why every time that Matti throws quotations from
the bible in it makes me mad. Same for Steve. He's forever making
those references, don't you know. And that Mozz who tried to snare
Chung in that insidious Buddhist viewpoint. It's a conspiracy, I tell
you. To try to tempt Chung away from his fundamentalist fanaticism.
Don't you just hate that? No, seriously...
> The long threads are all your fault. You start
> them and Dr. Chung responds, etc, etc.
You're right. Why, if everybody didn't get together in some Mel's
Diner kinda place and plot against him, there'd be no long threads.
Chung wouldn't have to write all those cryptic and absurd epigrammatic
trolls. Chung has no choice but to respond. It's absolutely necessary
that he do. No, seriously...
> In my opinion there is nothing "fanatical" about Dr. Chung's beliefs as he has
> represented them on this newsgroup. The trolling team continuing to make this
> assertion only makes you look to be the fanatics.
John, very few people have brought the clarity and depth of logical
development to this NG and I know I can speak for everyone when I say,
Bwahahahahahaha
We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
was. She sure disappeared fast enough.
> John
I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
Pastorio
Matti Narkia
<20031204153231...@mb-m25.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
(John9212112) wrote:
>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of Dr.
>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>
[snip]
>On the other
>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>trolling team.
>
Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
Chung's message as nonsense:
<http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
Are you calling Chung a liar?
Steve
the doubt and assume your post is sincere. I hope you will take my
response in a similar spirit.
On Thu, 4 Dec 2003 15:32:31 -0500, John9212112 wrote
(in message <20031204153231...@mb-m25.aol.com>):
> As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
> Dr. Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going
> on far too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc.
"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
disagrees with someone else.
I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling. A
common element of all definitions, however, seems to be an attempt to
disrupt a group, not to simply target a specific individual or a
specific idea. While you may not agree with the criticisms of Chung's
2PD or religious posts, such criticism hardly falls under common
definitions of "trolling". A search of google, for example, will
reveal that when Chung is not discussing either of these two ideas, he
is pretty much left alone as is everyone else in the group.
I cannot speak for the others you have accused, but if it were my
intention to troll s.m.c., I would be attempting to provoke multiple
posters on multiple topics. For an example of "classic" trolling, see
Mu's posts in, for example, the diet groups or Chung's malicious cross
posting, disingenuously called "a convenience" to such groups as
rec.art.cooking or the diabetes group where he has specifically been
asked many times not to post.
> I find Dr. Chung's postings to be very interesting and valuable to me
> personally and well within the charter of this group.
Chung frequently posts "On Topic", ie about cardiology, and is rarely
if ever attacked when he does. It does seem, however, that if someone
disagrees with him on a medical matter, that that person's
"comprehension" and grasp of the language is called into question by
Chung thereby precipitating a "flame war". Perhaps that is the term
you are searching for?
> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be off
> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.
I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
disease that discussion of it is appropriate here. Given the prevalence
of heart disease, it would not take too much imagination to link any
topic to it.
Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
here.
You can't have it both ways.
> As for the religious threads, it seems to me that they have mostly been
> started and fueled by the Trolling Team. I find no fault in Dr. Chung
> for including simple blessings in his posts. The long threads are all your
> fault. You start them and Dr. Chung responds, etc, etc.
It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?
Furthermore, if you believe Chung confines his remarks to "simple
blessings", you haven't been paying attention. Take a trip down google
lane.
> In my opinion there is nothing "fanatical" about Dr. Chung's beliefs as he
> has represented them on this newsgroup. The trolling team continuing to make
> this assertion only makes you look to be the fanatics.
If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?
Some of us find Chung's behavior repugnant and, usenet being the medium
it is, feel free to call him on it. This, of course, offends some
people like yourself who disagree. I suppose that's the price one pays
for an unmoderated group and free speech.
If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
on religion and the 2PD; if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
Team" would disappear. It is a principle of law that you can't claim
self defense if you started the fight. Not a bad principle.
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Are you calling yourself a troll, Matti?
Bob Pastorio
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> john9...@aol.com (John9212112) wrote:
>>
>>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of Dr.
>>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>On the other
>>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>>>trolling team.
>>>
>>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>>Chung's message as nonsense:
>>
>><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>>
>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>
> Are you calling yourself a troll, Matti?
This has to be the lamest post ever.
<LOL>
Chung's got holes in his socks...
Pastorio
Matti Narkia
<vt20k0p...@corp.supernews.com> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net>
wrote:
Yep, pathetic. He has my pity ;-).
Steve
(in message <3v02tv0ofute6v6cv...@4ax.com>):
But let's all pray for him tonight.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<ad hominem attacks on a lurker snipped>
> Bwahahahahahaha
Sounds like you have gone off the deep end again.
> We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
> that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
> was. She sure disappeared fast enough.
Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
hallucination for you?
Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
year?
> > John
>
> I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.
>
> Pastorio
You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.
You also remain in my prayers. May God cure you of your obsessions
soon.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Bob Pastorio
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vsvpfb6...@corp.supernews.com>...
> <ad hominem attacks on a lurker snipped>
>
>>Bwahahahahahaha
>
> Sounds like you have gone off the deep end again.
Oh, my, Chung posts a snide non sequitur.
Snide, a. [orig., counterfeit, bogus from thieves' slang] sly and
malicious; as a snide remark.
Snide, n. a sly and malicious person.
E-va'-sion, n.
1. an avoiding of a duty, question, fact, etc. by deceit or cleverness.
2. the means of doing this; excuse, subterfuge, equivocation, artifice.
"Thou by evasions thy crime uncoverest more." - Milton.
Synonyms - sophistry, subterfuge, prevarication, equivocation, artifice.
>>We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
>>that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
>>was. She sure disappeared fast enough.
>
> Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
> hallucination for you?
More likely a sign of Chung's degenerating faculties? Here's the
fraudulent effluent from the Chung/Mu machine: <http://tinyurl.com/xybr>
I bet Chung can't remember "Mel Hall" because it's almost as
embarrassing as the rest of the fake posts. And, well, the real ones
too. "Mel Hall" claims to have gone to school with Mu. Six of one...
> Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
> year?
Shiitake, enokitake, crimini... Could Chung be more sleazy? Oh, wait,
it's Chung.
In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
insinuations.
>>>John
>>
>>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
>
> Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.
This passes for wit Chez Chung.
>>Pastorio
>
> You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.
Love, n.
1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
persons.
2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of acting.
3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
opposite sex.
4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart; a
lover.
5. sexual passion or its gratification.
6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
7. in tennis, a score of zero.
8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
brotherhood that people should have for each other.
Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving, beneficence,
bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity, kindheartedness,
kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.
> You also remain in my prayers.
Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.
"And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.
> May God cure you of your obsessions
> soon.
It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this that create the
setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung a...
Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
a particular field.
2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
fraudulent practitioner.
Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender.
ma...@sorbet.nothere
>if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
>posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
>Team" would disappear.
This world be the single biggest improvement that could happen in this
group.
Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
Matt
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <snip>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
> on religion and the 2PD;
Newsflash: Your hanging around does not inhibit me.
> if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
> posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
> Team" would disappear.
Though I like having you around, neighbor. That would not be the reason for my
posting on either subject.
> It is a principle of law that you can't claim
> self defense if you started the fight.
Who's claiming self-defense?
> Not a bad principle.
>
Not relevant. Sorry.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Have no problems with that provided you are praying to the right God.
See:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vsvpfb6...@corp.supernews.com>...
> > <ad hominem attacks on a lurker snipped>
> >
> >>Bwahahahahahaha
> >
> > Sounds like you have gone off the deep end again.
>
> Oh, my, Chung posts a snide non sequitur.
>
> Snide, a. [orig., counterfeit, bogus from thieves' slang] sly and
> malicious; as a snide remark.
>
> Snide, n. a sly and malicious person.
>
> E-va'-sion, n.
> 1. an avoiding of a duty, question, fact, etc. by deceit or cleverness.
> 2. the means of doing this; excuse, subterfuge, equivocation, artifice.
> "Thou by evasions thy crime uncoverest more." - Milton.
> Synonyms - sophistry, subterfuge, prevarication, equivocation, artifice.
>
Are you playing scrabble, Pastorio?
>
> >>We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
> >>that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
> >>was. She sure disappeared fast enough.
> >
> > Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
> > hallucination for you?
>
> More likely a sign of Chung's degenerating faculties? Here's the
> fraudulent effluent from the Chung/Mu machine: <http://tinyurl.com/xybr>
>
Reviewed the post. Don't know Mel Hall. Don't even know Mel's gender. Mel certainly is not a
medical school classmate of mine. Where's your source for this information (gender and medical
school education)?
Are you sure you aren't eating those mushrooms again?
>
> I bet Chung can't remember "Mel Hall" because it's almost as
> embarrassing as the rest of the fake posts.
Don't remember Mel Hall's posts as you describe them. Would definitely remember post from my
medical school classmates.
> And, well, the real ones
> too.
How do you know they are fake?
> "Mel Hall" claims to have gone to school with Mu.
Well, which is it?
You seem to be confused. First Mel is my classmate and now Mel is Mu's.
> Six of one...
>
Sounds like six too many for you. May only seem like one mushroom.
>
> > Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
> > year?
>
> Shiitake, enokitake, crimini... Could Chung be more sleazy?
Why is making observations about your behavior and eating habits sleazy?
Why are you ashamed of your habits?
> Oh, wait,
> it's Chung.
>
Yes. Not Mu.
>
> In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
> implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
>
> In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
> intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
> insinuations.
>
Back to scrabble again...
>
> >>>John
> >>
> >>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
> >
> > Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.
>
> This passes for wit Chez Chung.
>
Time to flush the Pastorio.
>
> >>Pastorio
> >
> > You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.
>
> Love, n.
> 1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
> persons.
> 2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of acting.
> 3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
> opposite sex.
> 4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart; a
> lover.
> 5. sexual passion or its gratification.
> 6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
> 7. in tennis, a score of zero.
> 8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
> devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
> brotherhood that people should have for each other.
>
Would subscribe to the latter.
Don't forget that I have written that if I encountered you dying somewhere (ie on a cath table),
that I would not hesitate to resuscitate you. This would prove the feeling of benevolent concern I
would have for you, neighbor.
>
> Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
> 1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
> 2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
> Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving, beneficence,
> bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity, kindheartedness,
> kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.
>
My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping people with their medical
questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.
>
> > You also remain in my prayers.
>
> Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
> who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.
How do you feign a prayer?
>
> "And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.
>
So it shall.
>
> > May God cure you of your obsessions
> > soon.
>
> It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this
Who's pretending?
> that create the
> setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung a...
>
Could it be that Pastorio is growing wiser?
>
> Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
> 1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
> a particular field.
> 2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
> fraudulent practitioner.
> Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender.
Guess not:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Steve
(in message <ac9e79567b2d41fb...@news.teranews.com>):
> Steve wrote:
>
>> <snip>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to
>> post on religion and the 2PD;
>
> Newsflash: Your hanging around does not inhibit me.
Newsflash for Chung and anyone else who has difficulty with
comprehension: No one said or implied that it did. If it did inhibit
you, now _that_ would be a welcome Newsflash :-)
Bob Pastorio
> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>>Oh, my, Chung posts a snide non sequitur.
>>
>>Snide, a. [orig., counterfeit, bogus from thieves' slang] sly and
>>malicious; as a snide remark.
>>
>>Snide, n. a sly and malicious person.
>>
>>E-va'-sion, n.
>>1. an avoiding of a duty, question, fact, etc. by deceit or cleverness.
>>2. the means of doing this; excuse, subterfuge, equivocation, artifice.
>> "Thou by evasions thy crime uncoverest more." - Milton.
>>Synonyms - sophistry, subterfuge, prevarication, equivocation, artifice.
>>
> Are you playing scrabble, Pastorio?
For Chung's convenience, I'm listing some of the words that apply to
him and his methods and style. It should demonstrate my heartfelt
concern for him and his future. Chung says it's not a contest and then
does this. Who (or what) to believe...? Could the axiom, "Actions
speak louder than words" apply?
>>>>We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
>>>>that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
>>>>was. She sure disappeared fast enough.
>>>
>>>Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
>>>hallucination for you?
>>
>>More likely a sign of Chung's degenerating faculties? Here's the
>>fraudulent effluent from the Chung/Mu machine: <http://tinyurl.com/xybr>
>>
> Reviewed the post. Don't know Mel Hall. Don't even know Mel's gender. Mel certainly is not a
> medical school classmate of mine. Where's your source for this information (gender and medical
> school education)?
>
> Are you sure you aren't eating those mushrooms again?
It would seem that the often-noted poor reading capacities of Chung
have just been documented. His much-boasted ability to see "truth" is
likewise as crippled as others have shown. Perhaps he missed the
dismissive, "or whatever it was. She sure disappeared fast enough."
that marks utter disbelief.
The first sentence of the posts is: "Hello, my name is Mel Hall and I
am a graduate of the University of Tennessee Medical School."
Mel's gender is clear enough based on her reference to her "ex-husband."
>>I bet Chung can't remember "Mel Hall" because it's almost as
>>embarrassing as the rest of the fake posts.
>
> Don't remember Mel Hall's posts as you describe them. Would definitely remember post from my
> medical school classmates.
>
>>And, well, the real ones
>>too.
>
> How do you know they are fake?
>
>>"Mel Hall" claims to have gone to school with Mu.
>
> Well, which is it?
It doesn't really matter, for the sake of establishing integrity.
> You seem to be confused. First Mel is my classmate and now Mel is Mu's.
>
>>Six of one...
>>
> Sounds like six too many for you.
You and Mu are the unfortunate matching sides of a tarnished coin.
Differentiating one from the other is a needless exercise.
Another reason to bring up "Mel" is her "statistics" about what
happens when her ex, John, put people on the 2PD and tracked them.
Here's what she says:
"John has placed dozens upon dozens of his patients on the TPD."
"The numbers come to this. Over 85% had lasted on the diet for at
least six months and every one of them had lost weight and had lost
weigh on a controlled basis. No diabetic issues were reported. As of
August, 2003. John had 48 patients on the TPD (starting with slightly
over 55 if I remember correctly); in six months or less every patient
had garbaged their food scales and could accurately assess food
weights."
Even though the whole post smacks of fraud, note how she posted
numbers, fake as they might be. Mu and Chung don't even do that
claiming that it would violate patient confidentiality. Seems like
this "Mel" has no such restraints, and it's obvious why. No patients
can be identified or compromised by this. Another fraud, another
evasion, another avoidance of anything approaching the rigor of
science from Chung and Mu.
> May only seem like one mushroom.
>
>>>Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
>>>year?
>>
>>Shiitake, enokitake, crimini... Could Chung be more sleazy?
>
> Why is making observations about your behavior and eating habits sleazy?
>
> Why are you ashamed of your habits?
If the observations were even remotely truthful and considered, they
might have value. But I already gave Chung the rationale for calling
him sleazy and it seems that his "truth-finder" <heh> skills are
failing. Here, once more:
>>In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
>>implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
>>
>>In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
>>intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
>>insinuations.
He is sleazy because his insinuations are specifically intended to
denigrate while claiming neutrality and even that sanctimonious fakery
of his fundamentalist, fanatical "Chungianity" that he substitutes for
anything approaching the generosity of spirit of real christianity.
>>Oh, wait,
>>it's Chung.
>>
> Yes. Not Mu.
The difference is more apparent than real.
>>In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
>>implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
>>
>>In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
>>intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
>>insinuations.
> Back to scrabble again...
Back to truth and clarity of definition. Back to clear elaboration of
Chung's legion frauds. Back to unavoidable boundaries.
>>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
>>>
>>>Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.
>>
>>This passes for wit Chez Chung.
>>
> Time to flush the Pastorio.
Chung's X-mas wish.
>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.
>>
>>Love, n.
>>1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
>>persons.
>>2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of acting.
>>3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
>>opposite sex.
>>4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart; a
>>lover.
>>5. sexual passion or its gratification.
>>6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
>>7. in tennis, a score of zero.
>>8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
>>devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
>>brotherhood that people should have for each other.
>>
> Would subscribe to the latter.
And yet, Chung's actions and words tell the real story.
> Don't forget that I have written that if I encountered you dying somewhere (ie on a cath table),
> that I would not hesitate to resuscitate you. This would prove the feeling of benevolent concern I
> would have for you, neighbor.
Nah. That's some untestable braggadocio. The history of Chung's words
say that benevolence isn't important. The words he uses and the claims
he makes and the boasts he offers say that his concern is egotistical
rather than benevolent. Once again, he lies, deliberately or because
of his mental infirmities.
That "benevolence" that will never be in a position to be seen proves
nothing; a theoretical boast. But his statement of it further proves
the accusation of his lack of honesty.
>>Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
>>1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
>>2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
>>Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving, beneficence,
>>bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity, kindheartedness,
>>kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.
>>
> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping people with their medical
> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.
Chung's denigration of others. his deliberate lying, his deliberate
swaggering, contentiousness, his inevitable dispute with anyone
offering a different opinion, his frequent use of innuendo, and his
general fraudulence and quackery mark him as a person more caught up
in his own unhealthy needs than in anything approaching altruism.
His promotion of the 2PD with all its dangerous flaws marks him as a
superficial thinker. And his recent comment about it being in the
"public domain" and therefore known to other physicians only serves to
reinforce the idea that egotism not altruism motivates him. It would
seem that he actually believes that responsible health care providers
would endorse this one-dimensional approach.
>>>You also remain in my prayers.
>>
>>Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
>>who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.
>
> How do you feign a prayer?
Chung is so cute when he deliberately "misunderstands." Chung feigns
piety when he is actually using it as another weapon in his arsenal of
broken arrows.
>> "And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.
>
> So it shall.
>
>>>May God cure you of your obsessions
>>>soon.
>>
>>It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this
>
> Who's pretending?
The fraud Chung is pretending to have knowledge of a medical
discipline not in his line of work.
>>that create the
>>setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung a...
>>
> Could it be that Pastorio is growing wiser?
Pastorio continues to spotlight fraud, chicanery, innuendo, fakery,
quackery, malice and hypocrisy. Look where the light shines...
>>Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
>>1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
>>a particular field.
>>2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
>>fraudulent practitioner.
>>Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender
>
> Guess not:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
Poor Chung is wounded by the lack of respect he so richly deserves, in
his mind.
It's hilarious reading his TV lawyer words on this page. It's also
instructive how Chung tries to make words mean what they don't. And
tries to make things in context mean something else.
If it's deliberate, he's a liar. If it's because of some deficiency in
his reading or comprehension skills, it's considerably more serious.
His response to the "Mel Hall" post referred to at the top of this
note would imply that he truly can't read and understand. That has
implications for his medical practice and his patients.
De-lus'-ion, n.
1. the act of deluding; deception; a misleading of the mind.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion
4. in psychiatry, a false, persistent belief not substantiated by
sensory evidence.
synonyms - illusion, fallacy, deception, error, hallucination.
De-lu'-sive, a.
1. apt to deceive; tending to mislead; deceptive, beguiling...
2. characterized by delusion; deceptive.
> Humbly,
Hum'-ble, n.
1. having or showing a consciousness of one's defects or shortcomings;
not proud; not self-assertive; modest.
synonyms. - lowly, meek, submissive, unassuming, unobtrusive, unassuming.
Hu-mil'-i-ty, n.
1. the state or quality of being humble of mind or spirit; absence of
pride or self-assertion.
2. [pl] acts of self-abasement.
It's likewise telling that, even after being shown the sorts of
definitions that rational people employ, Chung persists in adhering to
his obviously fake self-descriptions.
Pity.
Pastorio
Steve
(in message <vt419c4...@corp.supernews.com>):
> Even though the whole post smacks of fraud, note how she posted
> numbers, fake as they might be. Mu and Chung don't even do that
> claiming that it would violate patient confidentiality.
Actually, all the many posts in support of Chung and the success of the
2PD are compelling and eloquent by their absence.
Steve
(in message <vt419c4...@corp.supernews.com>):
>> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping
>> people with their medical
>> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.
Well, Chung, I'm sorry to say it doesn't. It could just as easily
"prove" that you have adopted a marketing strategy of dispensing free
medical advice to draw people to your web site where they are solicited
to become your patients.
> 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 inform
> 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 web site 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)
Would you have us believe that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and the myriad
of other companies offering "free services" are simply doing it because
they love their neighbors?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:06:09 -0500, Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
> >posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
> >Team" would disappear.
>
> This world be the single biggest improvement that could happen in this
> group.
>
In your opinion.
>
> Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
> truth about whatever,
Haven't made this claim. It seems that you believe there is only one
person on this planet (me) who believes in Christ.
> and thus is never wrong.
Knowing the truth does not make one a god (ie one who is never wrong).
> He can never admit when
> he is wrong, even a little bit.
Do all the time though I am not often wrong. Anyone can Google to learn
that I continue to write truthfully. Have never claimed to be perfect.
However, my boss (God) is perfect. That I am not often wrong is to His
credit and glory.
God's humble bond-servant,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
John9212112
>Wow. "Team Trolling (TM)" is so witty. Just a dazzler of incisive
>characterization. Jeez, how come you waited so long to shine your
>bright light here, John? The group has had need of your objective
>viewpoint and clarity of expression. No, seriously...
And kudos to you for your wit as well.....
>I know what you mean. Not a single bit of information worth pondering
>since it's far outside of "modern cardiological practice" and all. No,
>seriously...
I don't know, maybe I missed something as it is usually hidden under a pile
of.....
>Damnation if I didn't find the same thing. I got fibrillations all
>over my atrium. And in my foyer and all the way across the music room,
>down the cellar steps and out the back door. No, seriously...
Ah, more wit. Thanks a lot, the group needs it.
>You're right. Why, if everybody didn't get together in some Mel's
>Diner kinda place and plot against him, there'd be no long threads.
>Chung wouldn't have to write all those cryptic and absurd epigrammatic
>trolls. Chung has no choice but to respond. It's absolutely necessary
>that he do. No, seriously...
Seems to me that an equally plausible hypothesis is that all the Team Trollers
are really you, just you, using different screen names, etc. You know, sock
puppets......sort of like how you accuse Dr. Chung and Mu of being the same
entity. So, Steve, Matti, Paul, etc, are you really just another part of Bob?
>John, very few people have brought the clarity and depth of logical
>development to this NG and I know I can speak for everyone when I say,
>Bwahahahahahaha
Hmmmmm, demonic laughter. I'm starting to worry about you. How long have you
been doing this?
>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
>
>Pastorio
Actually, I was surprised to learn that the famous English plumber Mr.
Crapper's Christian name is not "John" by, rather, "Thomas." Oh, and lets not
forget that "John" is also a slang term for the customer of a prostitute.
"Bob", on the other hand, is a slang term meaning "to cut something shorter."
E.g., could we please "Bob" this interminable trolling. Or maybe Dr. Chung's
suggestion is better.
I guess I should start praying for you, too.
John
John9212112
>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
>Dr.
>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>>
>[snip]
>
>>On the other
>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>>trolling team.
>>
>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>Chung's message as nonsense:
>
><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>
>Are you calling Chung a liar?
Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references. Mostly
I recall your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.
John
Matti Narkia
<20031206153535...@mb-m28.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
(John9212112) wrote:
>>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>
>>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
>>Dr.
>>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>>On the other
>>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>>>trolling team.
>>>
>>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>>Chung's message as nonsense:
>>
>><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>>
>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>
>Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
>saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie? And if you saw _only one_ that
is either a second lie, or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
without investigating the evidence.
>Mostly
>I recall your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
>Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.
>
I'm sorry that you feel that way. However, the assignment of this kind of
attributes to person without qualifying them in any way at all is called
an ad hominem attack which besides being a violation of netiquette is also
very bad behavior. Only my politeness prevents me from describing what
kind of impression that and the content of your messages create in me.
Hint: words objective, intelligent, truthful and words related to them do
not belong to the description of my impression.
As for your comments about Chung, it's astonishing how anyone could be so
blind to the content of Chung's off-topic comments, which have been IMHO
mostly correctly analyzed in detail by several group subscribers. I doubt
that anyone can be so blind (or so dumb). So what is your agenda and your
relationship to Chung?
John9212112
>"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>disagrees with someone else.
>
>I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
>> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be
>off
>> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.
>
>I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
>disease that discussion of it is appropriate here.
[....]
Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
disease?
>Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
>appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
>here.
>You can't have it both ways.
I don't think you can legitimately claim that what has been going on here is
"criticism" except in its basest form. Dr. Chung has presented a rational
case for 2PD on his web site. I don't see the Trolling Team providing anything
rational at all......just a lot of Bwahahaha. If there is a rational argument
against 2PD, let's hear it. Don't bother presenting the silly arguments that
violate common sense (e.g., 2 lbs of chocolate per day, etc.) Besides, Dr.
Chung has addressed all these on his web site. Come on, give me something
rational. Surely, you can do that, can't you?
>It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
>Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
>originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
>called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?
You introduce it and then slam it. >> this assertion only makes you look to be
the fanatics.
>
>If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
>fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?
Give me a rational argument.
>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
>on religion and the 2PD;
And why should he quit posting on 2PD? Maybe he (and others) should also quit
posting on aspirin or EKG?
And why should he quit being himself and letting his faith show. If you want
to see some REAL off-topic religion discussions, take a look at
rec.motorcycles. But at least most of these discussions are conducted in a
respectful, civil and rational manner. Unlike here.
>--
>God's Other Humble Servant
Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.
John
John9212112
>
>Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
>truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
>he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
>Matt
I don't think Dr. Chung claims any such thing. What he does is claim to be
speaking truthfully. Big difference. Not really any different than what one
is asked to do when testifying in a court of law. He is claiming to be
speaking the truth as he knows it, not an absolute truth in a logical sense. I
am also doing the same thing here. Speaking truthfully, that is. I hope you
are too. But I do wonder.....
John
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> 06 Dec 2003 20:35:35 GMT in article
> <20031206153535...@mb-m28.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
> (John9212112) wrote:
>
> >>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
> >
> >>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
> >>Dr.
> >>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
> >>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
> >>>
> >>[snip]
> >>
> >>>On the other
> >>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
> >>>trolling team.
> >>>
> >>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
> >>Chung's message as nonsense:
> >>
> >><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
> >>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
> >>
> >>Are you calling Chung a liar?
> >
> >Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
> >saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>
> So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie?
Actually, he now remembers and is being truthful.
> And if you saw _only one_ that
> is either a second lie,
He states that maybe he saw a post from you one time that was possibly useful for
him.
> or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
> without investigating the evidence.
He does not appear to be judging you.
>
>
> >Mostly
> >I recall your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
> >Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.
> >
> I'm sorry that you feel that way. However, the assignment of this kind of
> attributes to person without qualifying them in any way at all is called
> an ad hominem attack which besides being a violation of netiquette is also
> very bad behavior.
A thief is quickest at accusing others of stealing.
> Only my politeness prevents me from describing what
> kind of impression that and the content of your messages create in me.
Your politeness has not stopped you before.
>
> Hint: words objective, intelligent, truthful and words related to them do
> not belong to the description of my impression.
>
The feeling is probably mutual.
>
> As for your comments about Chung, it's astonishing how anyone could be so
> blind to the content of Chung's off-topic comments,
Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
> which have been IMHO
> mostly correctly analyzed in detail by several group subscribers.
Your opinion would also speak to this anti-christian bias.
> I doubt
> that anyone can be so blind (or so dumb).
Is it your claim that the blind can't read?
> So what is your agenda
John probably cares about the truth.
> and your
> relationship to Chung?
Through Christ, he is likely one of my many brothers.
Humbly,
Steve
(in message <20031206162244...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
>> From: ma...@sorbet.nothere
>
>>
>> Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
>> truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
>> he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
>> Matt
>
> I don't think Dr. Chung claims any such thing.
Here are two direct quotes from Chung:
> I also have the gift of vision. I know I have the gift of truth
> discernment in the same manner I know I have the gift of vision (1)
> Please do recall that I have been blessed with the gift of truth discernment
> as we have discussed earlier. (2)
There are many others in a similar vein. Similarly a little research
(rather than relying on your "memory") will reveal Chung's religious
fanaticism, proselytizing, patronization, baiting, ad hominem attacks,
obfuscation, dissembling, and outright lying on many different
subjects. It will also, by the way, reveal Matti's substantial
contributions as well as Chung's (apparently now retracted)
acknowledgement of them.
If you wish to be taken seriously, you are going to have to do a little
research. Do you know how to use google groups?
If, on the other hand, you simply wish to make up facts from what you
wish were true, then welcome to the "The Chung Team" (TM).
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
(1)
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22gift+of+truth%22+group:sci.med.cardio
logy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3F6B5F8C.A0F9DB48%40heartmdphd.com&rnum=1
(2)
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+%22gift+of+truth%22+group:sci.med.cardio
logy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3F8F1175.A0C8C1F0%40heartmdphd.com&rnum=2
Matti Narkia
<3FD25050...@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> 06 Dec 2003 20:35:35 GMT in article
>> <20031206153535...@mb-m28.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
>> (John9212112) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>> >
>> >>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
>> >>Dr.
>> >>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>> >>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>> >>>
>> >>[snip]
>> >>
>> >>>On the other
>> >>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>> >>>trolling team.
>> >>>
>> >>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>> >>Chung's message as nonsense:
>> >>
>> >><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>> >>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>> >>
>> >>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>> >
>> >Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
>> >saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>>
>> So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie?
>
>Actually, he now remembers and is being truthful.
>
How on earth can you possibly _know_ that? Is he your alter-ego?
Or did you forget to include the word "perhaps". If you didn't, either you
don't speak truthfully, or you and John are the same person.
>
>> As for your comments about Chung, it's astonishing how anyone could be so
>> blind to the content of Chung's off-topic comments,
>
>Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
>
Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.
>> which have been IMHO
>> mostly correctly analyzed in detail by several group subscribers.
>
>Your opinion would also speak to this anti-christian bias.
>
Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.
Steve
(in message <20031206161526...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
>> From: Steve nos...@nospam.com
>
>> "Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>> disagrees with someone else.
>>
>> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
>
> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
definition.
>
>>> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be
>> off
>>> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.
>>
>> I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
>> disease that discussion of it is appropriate here.
> [....]
> Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
> disease?
If one follows your logic, we can dispense with the whole
alt.support.diet hierarchy of groups and simply discuss them here. And
since cooking relates to food which relates to obesity which relates to
heart disease, why not collapse all the cooking and food groups into
here too.
And since genetics, smoking, how old you are, what sex you are, where
you live, your psychological makeup, etc. are also risk factors we can
collapse the related groups into here also. With a little effort we
could probably collapse the whole of usenet into sci.med.cardiology,
simplifying things for everyone tremendously.
>
>> Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
>> appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
>> here.
>> You can't have it both ways.
>
> I don't think you can legitimately claim that what has been going on here is
> "criticism" except in its basest form.
As you have shown in another thread, you are unfamiliar with "what has
been going on here". I suggest you do some googling and return when
you have some facts.
> Dr. Chung has presented a rational
> case for 2PD on his web site.
Reasonable people can disagree on what is "rational".
> I don't see the Trolling Team providing
> anything
> rational at all......just a lot of Bwahahaha. If there is a rational
> argument
> against 2PD, let's hear it.
> Don't bother presenting the silly arguments that
> violate common sense (e.g., 2 lbs of chocolate per day, etc.) Besides, Dr.
> Chung has addressed all these on his web site. Come on, give me something
> rational. Surely, you can do that, can't you?
Several people have provided extensive rational arguments. The fact
that you are unfamiliar with them does not make them any less rational.
Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
faith and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
so.
>
>> It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
>> Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
>> originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
>> called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?
>
> You introduce it and then slam it.
You are simply wrong and cannot back this up.
>> this assertion only makes you look to
> be
> the fanatics.
>>
>> If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
>> fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?
>
> Give me a rational argument.
Again, rational arguments have been provided. Since you appear to be
unfamiliar with the full history of these dialogs, you are hardly in a
position to judge whether or not they were rational. However, that is
not the point I was making. You were questioning the legitimacy of our
challenging Chung, not it's rationality. It is of the nature of human
beings to disagree. If it is legitimate for one side to present their
viewpoint, it is surely legitimate for the other side to present theirs
without being accused of "trolling", no matter that the term is
misapplied.
Chung himself has said elsewhere in this thread (and in others) that he
welcomes our participation. So what's _your_ problem?
>
>> If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
>> on religion and the 2PD;
>
> And why should he quit posting on 2PD? Maybe he (and others) should also
> quit posting on aspirin or EKG?
There are not other usenet groups dedicated to aspirin and EKG. It is
one thing to recommend that people with heart problems lose weight. It
is something else to expound on a particular pet diet and disparge
others. The former would be an appropriate discussion in this group;
the latter would be more appropriate in one of the diet groups.
Also, if Chung had a private label aspirin which was promoted on his
website, advocating it here while disparging other brands of aspirin
would be inappropriate as would cross posting his advertisements "as a
convenience" to completely unrelated groups such as rec.arts.cooking.
And if his arguments for his private label brand of aspirin were
specious, it would also be legitimate for people to challenge him.
>
> And why should he quit being himself and letting his faith show. If you want
> to see some REAL off-topic religion discussions...
Ah, but I don't. That's the point... get it?
>> --
>> God's Other Humble Servant
>
> Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
> Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.
It's called "parody"... you could look it up while you are googling.
If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
discussion. If you simply want to hurl accusations based on made up
"facts", you are no better than Chung and I don't plan on having
discussions with two Chungs... one is frustrating enough :-) And at
this point, you are not even a good Chung.
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
John9212112
>>> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
>>
>> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
>
>Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
>word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
>definition.
Are you confused Steve? First you say you're unaware of a widely accepted
definition and then you criticise me for using my own. I know I confessed to a
memory deficit but maybe you need to be truthful about your own memory issues?
>> Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
>> disease?
>
>If one follows your logic, we can dispense with the whole
>alt.support.diet hierarchy of groups and simply discuss them here. And
>since cooking relates to food which relates to obesity which relates to
>heart disease, why not collapse all the cooking and food groups into
>here too.
>
>And since genetics, smoking, how old you are, what sex you are, where
>you live, your psychological makeup, etc. are also risk factors we can
>collapse the related groups into here also. With a little effort we
>could probably collapse the whole of usenet into sci.med.cardiology,
>simplifying things for everyone tremendously.
Clearly, you're arguing ad absurdum here. To follow this line then, maybe a
better cure would be to take the discussion of 2PD to the alt.support.diet
groups. Oh, wait a minute, that's what Dr. Chung has been doing improperly,
according to Trolling Team (and others from those groups). The diet groups
don't seem to want to talk about diet. But heart patients are possibly more
motivated to seriously consider these issues. What do you think?
[...]
>Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
>but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
>faith and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
>so.
Ok, you're missing out on your big chance to try to convince of the rightness
of your position. I'll guess I have no choice but to continue thinking what I
now think. Oh well.
Ok, so you don't want to discuss it. But why do you continue wasting your time
criticising Dr. Chung with no rational basis.
>Also, if Chung had a private label aspirin which was promoted on his
>website, advocating it here while disparging other brands of aspirin
>would be inappropriate as would cross posting his advertisements "as a
>convenience" to completely unrelated groups such as rec.arts.cooking.
Is Dr. Chung selling his 2PD book here or on his site? I must have missed it.
>Ah, but I don't. That's the point... get it?
Then why don't you let go of it? It seems to me that you enjoy it. I merely
suggest that there might be better places to discuss (or not discuss) religion
since you seem to want to keep doing this.
>>> God's Other Humble Servant
>>
>> Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
>
>> Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.
>
>It's called "parody"... you could look it up while you are googling.
Thanks for noticing my parody. ;-)
>If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
>discussion. If you simply want to hurl accusations based on made up
>"facts", you are no better than Chung and I don't plan on having
>discussions with two Chungs... one is frustrating enough :-) And at
>this point, you are not even a good Chung.
No, I am not. But I can wish, I guess.
_
John
John9212112
>>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>>
>>Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that
>maybe I
>>saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>
>So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie? And if you saw _only one_ that
>is either a second lie, or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
>without investigating the evidence.
From an online dictionary: lie (I know how much Bob likes
dictionaries.)
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
Clearly, one can not tell a lie by mistake. I already said I was mistaken. So
for you to accuse me of lying indicates either that you did not understand my
clear expression or else you are deliberately misconstruing my works and are
therefor lying yourself. Perhaps there are other possibilities. I hope so.
>So what is your agenda and your relationship to Chung?
I hope for the return of civil discourse and reasoned discussion to this group.
I have never met Dr. Chung. I only know him via the internet. Same as my
relationship to Matti Narkia, come to think of it.
-
John
Steve
(in message <20031206190717...@mb-m04.aol.com>):
>> From: Steve nos...@nospam.com
>
>>>> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
>>>
>>> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
>>
>> Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
>> word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
>> definition.
>
> Are you confused Steve? First you say you're unaware of a widely accepted
> definition and then you criticise me for using my own.
Congratulations! You are well on your way to becomming a "Chungsman"...
you have mastered the technique of selectively snipping out a part of a
post in order to distort it's meaning. Let me resupply you with the
missing part:
> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling. A
> common element of all definitions, however, seems to be an attempt to
> disrupt a group, not to simply target a specific individual or a
> specific idea. While you may not agree with the criticisms of Chung's
> 2PD or religious posts, such criticism hardly falls under common
> definitions of "trolling". A search of google, for example, will
> reveal that when Chung is not discussing either of these two ideas, he
> is pretty much left alone as is everyone else in the group.
Note how the snipped version conveniently leaves out the concepts of "a
common element of all definitions, however" and "common definitions of
trolling". This is Chungsmanship at its best. Snip the context and
then respond to the the now altered meaning.
Next, you will be praying for me.
We're done, Bucko. One Chung is one Chung too many.
>> And at
>> this point, you are not even a good Chung.
>
> No, I am not. But I can wish, I guess.
You are on your way.
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
Matti Narkia
<20031206192106...@mb-m04.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
(John9212112) wrote:
>>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>
>>>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>>>
>>>Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that
>>maybe I
>>>saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>>
>>So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie? And if you saw _only one_ that
>>is either a second lie, or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
>>without investigating the evidence.
>
>From an online dictionary: lie (I know how much Bob likes
>dictionaries.)
>1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
>2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
>
>Clearly, one can not tell a lie by mistake. I already said I was mistaken. So
>for you to accuse me of lying indicates either that you did not understand my
>clear expression or else you are deliberately misconstruing my works and are
>therefor lying yourself. Perhaps there are other possibilities. I hope so.
>
You said that you maybe saw my post with some possibly useful web
references. Stop twisting. Either you saw or you didn't. Did you or did
you not? Regardless of whether you saw or "maybe" saw there was either
definite or somewhat vague picture in your mind that you've seen a post by
me with useful facts in it. Still, you claimed that this was not a case.
According to the definition given by you that was lie. Q.E.D.
BTW, it's no excuse for your behavior if you have a poor memory. If you
know that you have a poor memory, you know that shouldn't give statements
which rely on memory. Bad ethics.
>>So what is your agenda and your relationship to Chung?
>
>I hope for the return of civil discourse and reasoned discussion to this group.
>
The why don't you set an example by starting from yourself?
Bob Pastorio
>>From: Steve nos...@nospam.com
>
>
>>"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>>disagrees with someone else.
>>
>>I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
>
> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
Nice bit of editing, fraud-boy. Snip out the fullness of it and make
up a self-serving definition. You're merely a shabby imitation of
fraud Chung. A shadow of a shadow...
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>
>
>>>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>>>
>>>Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that
>>>>maybe I saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>>
>>So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie? And if you saw _only one_ that
>>is either a second lie, or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
>>without investigating the evidence.
>
>
> From an online dictionary: lie (I know how much Bob likes
> dictionaries.)
> 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
> 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
>
> Clearly, one can not tell a lie by mistake. I already said I was mistaken.
No you didn't. You said "maybe I saw a post from you one time with
some possibly useful web references." That's not admitting a mistake,
it's trying to escape from a noose you put around your own lying neck.
That's weasel-word self-forgiveness. You deliberately misstated the
situation and when you were caught at it, you tried to sleaze your way
out of it. Forget it, John. You're busted.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
... a rather surprising apologia for poor, stupid, John with the
faulty memory, duplicitous inclinations and rash assertions. It's
almost like he knows the inside of John's mind. Like they're linked by
some occult means. Another amazing example of Chung's ability to
ferret out the truth and elucidate it, even if the other person
doesn't know it. Like John, here...
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>
>>06 Dec 2003 20:35:35 GMT in article
>><20031206153535...@mb-m28.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
>>(John9212112) wrote:
>>
>>>>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>>>
>>>>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
>>>>Dr. Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>>>>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>
>>>>>On the other
>>>>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>>>>>trolling team.
>>>>>
>>>>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>>>>Chung's message as nonsense:
>>>>
>>>><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>>>>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>>>>
>>>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>>>
>>>Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
>>>saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>>
>>So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie?
And Chung says:
> Actually, he now remembers and is being truthful.
>
>>And if you saw _only one_ that
>>is either a second lie,
And Chung says:
> He states that maybe he saw a post from you one time that was possibly useful for
> him.
>
>>or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
>>without investigating the evidence.
And Chung says:
> He does not appear to be judging you.
But when John calls a personally identified group "Team Trolling(TM)"
it *is* exactly judging. He offers a rather stupid definition of
trolling and ascribes it to several people.
>>>Mostly
>>>I recall your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
>>>Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.
>>>
>>I'm sorry that you feel that way. However, the assignment of this kind of
>>attributes to person without qualifying them in any way at all is called
>>an ad hominem attack which besides being a violation of netiquette is also
>>very bad behavior.
And Chung says:
> A thief is quickest at accusing others of stealing.
This is called an aphorism in the study of rhetoric. Or rather it
would be called that if it contained a grain of truth. As it stands,
it's merely shitwit obfuscation to try to cast aspersions by innuendo
and insinuation.
>>Only my politeness prevents me from describing what
>>kind of impression that and the content of your messages create in me.
And Chung says:
> Your politeness has not stopped you before.
Wonderfully sly, Chung is. Statements/accusations with no explanation
or support. Merely negative as though axiomatic. Insinuation again.
>>Hint: words objective, intelligent, truthful and words related to them do
>>not belong to the description of my impression.
And Chung says:
> The feeling is probably mutual.
And finally breaks through into a truthful statement. That's one in a row.
>>As for your comments about Chung, it's astonishing how anyone could be so
>>blind to the content of Chung's off-topic comments,
And Chung says:
> Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
And here's Chung at his oily best. Insinuation again, but this time,
the injection of a false martyrdom. As though poor Chung is the victim
of a concerted movement rather than because he's a liar, fraud and
quack. Disagree with Chung and, by his sick implication, you're
disagreeing with god.
>>which have been IMHO
>>mostly correctly analyzed in detail by several group subscribers.
And Chung says:
> Your opinion would also speak to this anti-christian bias.
And here it is again! If you disagree with Chung, you disagree with
Jesus. This from a man who fraudulently calls himself "humble."
>>I doubt
>>that anyone can be so blind (or so dumb).
And Chung says:
> Is it your claim that the blind can't read?
Hilarious. Obfuscation to try to put Matti on the defensive. Instead,
Chung looks like the sleaze he is.
>>So what is your agenda
And Chung says:
> John probably cares about the truth.
Except he has a bad memory for either truth or falsehood and seems to
"confuse" them.
>>and your
>>relationship to Chung?
>
> Through Christ, he is likely one of my many brothers.
As opposed to one of his "neighbors" who see Chung for the fake he is.
> Humbly,
This lie again.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>
>
>>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of
>>
>>Dr.
>>
>>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>>>
>>
>>[snip]
>>
>>
>>>On the other
>>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>>>trolling team.
>>>
>>
>>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>>Chung's message as nonsense:
>>
>><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>>
>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
>
> Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory.
But you seem perfectly willing to use it as a reference point to make
accusations.
> I also confess that maybe I
> saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
But you're either too inept, too lazy or too incompetent to check.
That, of course, is the rest of your confession.
> Mostly
> I recall
Mostly you have a bad memory, remember? Oh, of course you don't
remember. You confess you have a bad memory.
> your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
> Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.
John, news for you. Your impression is already one of a sycophantic
sock puppet with a poor memory and a perfect willingness to make rash
statements with no support. Might want to pray about that for a while.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
>>From: Bob Pastorio past...@rica.net
>
>>Wow. "Team Trolling (TM)" is so witty. Just a dazzler of incisive
>>characterization. Jeez, how come you waited so long to shine your
>>bright light here, John? The group has had need of your objective
>>viewpoint and clarity of expression. No, seriously...
>
> And kudos to you for your wit as well.....
If only you really knew what that means...
>>I know what you mean. Not a single bit of information worth pondering
>>since it's far outside of "modern cardiological practice" and all. No,
>>seriously...
>
> I don't know, maybe I missed something as it is usually hidden under a pile
> of.....
Funny how in another post you say you do distantly recall something
good. Makes you look either like a liar or rather stupid. Or a
polemicist clawing and scratching to justify and forgive Chung his
fakery and quackery. Which do you like best?
>>Damnation if I didn't find the same thing. I got fibrillations all
>>over my atrium. And in my foyer and all the way across the music room,
>>down the cellar steps and out the back door. No, seriously...
>
> Ah, more wit. Thanks a lot, the group needs it.
>
>
>>You're right. Why, if everybody didn't get together in some Mel's
>>Diner kinda place and plot against him, there'd be no long threads.
>>Chung wouldn't have to write all those cryptic and absurd epigrammatic
>>trolls. Chung has no choice but to respond. It's absolutely necessary
>>that he do. No, seriously...
>
> Seems to me that an equally plausible hypothesis is that all the Team Trollers
> are really you, just you, using different screen names, etc. You know, sock
> puppets......sort of like how you accuse Dr. Chung and Mu of being the same
> entity. So, Steve, Matti, Paul, etc, are you really just another part of Bob?
You know, only a shitwit with no understanding of how to read headers
would say that. But, of course, it merely furthers the fraudulent
style of posting that you, Chung and Mu use.
>>John, very few people have brought the clarity and depth of logical
>>development to this NG and I know I can speak for everyone when I say,
>>Bwahahahahahaha
>
> Hmmmmm, demonic laughter. I'm starting to worry about you. How long have you
> been doing this?
Demonic? No. Merely consumed with hilarity at the abject transparency
of your hero worship. So lessee, Chung worship the human body and you
worship Chung. Nice.
>>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> Actually, I was surprised to learn that the famous English plumber Mr.
> Crapper's Christian name is not "John" by, rather, "Thomas." Oh, and lets not
> forget that "John" is also a slang term for the customer of a prostitute.
Seems poetically appropriate. You, Chung and Mu. Which is which?
> "Bob", on the other hand, is a slang term meaning "to cut something shorter."
> E.g., could we please "Bob" this interminable trolling. Or maybe Dr. Chung's
> suggestion is better.
And packed with all the wit you could handle.
> I guess I should start praying for you, too.
Were I you, and I'm profoundly happy I'm not, I'd worry more about the
transparency of our souls and who can see into them.
Pastorio
ma...@sorbet.nothere
wrote:
<an excellent, well documented response>
Thank you for the detailed comments. As always, the details show a
more accurate picture. Post more responses like this.
Matt
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:34:44 -0500, Bob Pastorio wrote
> (in message <vt419c4...@corp.supernews.com>):
>
> >> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping
> >> people with their medical
> >> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.
>
> Well, Chung, I'm sorry to say it doesn't. It could just as easily
> "prove" that you have adopted a marketing strategy of dispensing free
> medical advice to draw people to your web site where they are solicited
> to become your patients.
The problem with that suggestion is that both my web site and my
presence on Usenet *predate* my cardiology practice.
> > If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
What proportion of the world's population resides in Georgia, do you
think?
> > 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 inform
> > me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username and password to
> > allow a preview.
Thank you for proving that my website is not a marketing ploy. What
marketing program tells potential customers that they might be turned
away or there may not be a "fit" ?
> > The more information you email, the more likely my decision
> > to send you a temporary username and password.
What marketing strategy entails telling people that it is unlikely
that services or a product will be available for them?
> > If you like what you see and
> > learn from this web site 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)
>
> Would you have us believe that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and the myriad
> of other companies offering "free services" are simply doing it because
> they love their neighbors?
Depends on whether the folks who are running those companies are
Christians.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It is what he wrote. I keep forgetting that English is your *fifth* language.
> Is he your alter-ego?
No. He seems to be a brother through Christ's resurrection.
> Or did you forget to include the word "perhaps".
English is my *first* language.
> If you didn't, either you
> don't speak truthfully, or you and John are the same person.
Or English is your *fifth* language.
> >
> >> As for your comments about Chung, it's astonishing how anyone could be so
> >> blind to the content of Chung's off-topic comments,
> >
> >Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
> >
> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.
What is a Christ-complex?
> >> which have been IMHO
> >> mostly correctly analyzed in detail by several group subscribers.
> >
> >Your opinion would also speak to this anti-christian bias.
> >
> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.
What is a Christ-complex?
Humble servant of Christ,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> 07 Dec 2003 00:21:06 GMT in article
> <20031206192106...@mb-m04.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
> (John9212112) wrote:
>
> >>From: Matti Narkia mn...@despammed.com
>
> >>>>Are you calling Chung a liar?
> >>>
> >>>Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that
> maybe I
> >>>saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
> >>
> >>So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie? And if you saw _only one_ that
> >>is either a second lie, or you have given your sentence (so to speak)
> >>without investigating the evidence.
> >
> >From an online dictionary: lie (I know how much Bob likes
> >dictionaries.)
> >1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
> >2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
> >
> >Clearly, one can not tell a lie by mistake. I already said I was mistaken. So
> >for you to accuse me of lying indicates either that you did not understand my
> >clear expression or else you are deliberately misconstruing my works and are
> >therefor lying yourself. Perhaps there are other possibilities. I hope so.
> >
> You said that you maybe saw my post with some possibly useful web
> references. Stop twisting.
Twisters are the quickest at accusing others of twisting.
Humbly,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:22:44 -0500, John9212112 wrote
> (in message <20031206162244...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
>
> >> From: ma...@sorbet.nothere
>
> >>
> >> Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
> >> truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
> >> he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
> >> Matt
> >
> > I don't think Dr. Chung claims any such thing.
>
> Here are two direct quotes from Chung:
>
> > I also have the gift of vision. I know I have the gift of truth
> > discernment in the same manner I know I have the gift of vision (1)
>
>
> > Please do recall that I have been blessed with the gift of truth discernment
> > as we have discussed earlier. (2)
>
>
> There are many others in a similar vein.
Thanks for proving that I have never written that *only* I know the
absolute truth.
> Similarly a little research
> (rather than relying on your "memory") will reveal Chung's religious
> fanaticism, proselytizing, patronization, baiting, ad hominem attacks,
> obfuscation, dissembling, and outright lying on many different
> subjects.
If your research turns up "similar" things, it should only prove I
have been similarly truthful.
> It will also, by the way, reveal Matti's substantial
> contributions as well as Chung's (apparently now retracted)
> acknowledgement of them.
Matti's posts are sometimes helpful in that they help make one aware
of contrary viewpoints. However, the anti-christian and anti-truth
bias often contaminates the contribution.
>
> If you wish to be taken seriously, you are going to have to do a little
> research. Do you know how to use google groups?
Help him out by providing Google links.
> If, on the other hand, you simply wish to make up facts from what you
> wish were true, then welcome to the "The Chung Team" (TM).
He seems to be part of Christ's team. Imho, Christ's team is the
better team for it always wins. It pays to worship the right God.
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
> --
> God's Other Humble Servant
>
> Steve
You are worshipping the wrong God, neighbor.
Be on the winning team... join Christ's team.
We welcome you :-)
Humble servant of Christ,
Steve
(in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
> Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<0001HW.BBF77D62...@news-50.giganews.com>...
>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:34:44 -0500, Bob Pastorio wrote
>> (in message <vt419c4...@corp.supernews.com>):
>>
>>>> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping
>>>> people with their medical
>>>> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.
>>
>> Well, Chung, I'm sorry to say it doesn't. It could just as easily
>> "prove" that you have adopted a marketing strategy of dispensing free
>> medical advice to draw people to your web site where they are solicited
>> to become your patients.
>
> The problem with that suggestion is that both my web site and my
> presence on Usenet *predate* my cardiology practice.
So you are saying you were a cardiologist who didn't practice? Hmm.
Wonder why? Or are you saying you weren't a cardiologist but posed as
one?
Whatever. The point is that you practice *now* and you solicit *now*.
I was merely pointing out that there are other possible explanations
for your participation here than the one you cite, hence your "proof"
is incomplete to say the least.
Another possible explanation, for example, is that you participate in a
misguided attempt to lure souls into your wacko fundamentalist sect.
Another is that you are lonely and bored. Another is that you are a
troll.
I'm not saying that any of these is the "real" reason, only that the
mere fact of your participation does not "prove" anything except that
you participate. Please do me the favor of not snipping parts of this
away to make it appear that I am saying something that I am not.
>
>>> If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
>
> What proportion of the world's population resides in Georgia, do you
> think?
I dunno. What does it matter? Six Billion times a small fraction is
still more that you could probably handle alone. What fraction of all
the people who receive spam email buy something as a result? By all
accounts, a fraction of a fraction of a percent... but still enough to
make it a lucrative business.
And are you saying that you would turn away a patient who didn't live
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
>>> inform
>>> me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username and password
>>> to
>>> allow a preview.
>
> Thank you for proving that my website is not a marketing ploy. What
> marketing program tells potential customers that they might be turned
> away or there may not be a "fit" ?
Well, Chung, there you go again claiming I have "proved" something. I
suppose your "logic" goes something like this:
All marketing ploys are smart
Chung's marketing ploy is dumb
Therefore, Chung's marketing ploy cannot be a marketing ploy.
Newsflash (I know you like them): All marketing ploys are not smart.
Bzzt! Syllogism breaks.
>
>>> The more information you email, the more likely my decision
>>> to send you a temporary username and password.
>
> What marketing strategy entails telling people that it is unlikely
> that services or a product will be available for them?
Newsflash: Many "marketing strategies" "qualify the customer" up front
to winnow out tire kickers, people without medical insurance, cranks,
chefs, Ethics Board Investigators, law enforcement agents, etc.
So it is not remarkable at all that one might turn away customers who
aren't fit. Next question?
BTW, I will grant you that you are not a marketing genius if that is
any consolation :-) But what is at issue here is intent, not results.
>
>>> If you like what you see and
>>> learn from this web site 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)
>>
>> Would you have us believe that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and the myriad
>> of other companies offering "free services" are simply doing it because
>> they love their neighbors?
>
> Depends on whether the folks who are running those companies are
> Christians.
OK. Let me see if I follow that... I'm still learning Chungspeak, you
know :-)
If the folks running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,
et al are Christians
Then they run these free web sites because they
love their neighbors.
Ergo, by logic, we must conclude that
If these web sites are not run by the folks at Google,
Yahoo, Microsoft, et al because they love their neighbors
Then they cannot be Christians.
Is that about the size of what you are saying?
Always good to have these little chats with you, Brother :-)
Steve
(in message <a4b1bd78.0312...@posting.google.com>):
<snip>
> Twisters are the quickest at accusing others of twisting.
People who hate God are the quickest at accusing others of hating God.
People who aren't True Christians are the quickest to accuse others of
not being True Christians.
Libelers are the quickest to accuse others of libeling.
Mushroom eaters are the quickest to accuse others of eating mushrooms.
I see how to play _this_ game, Chung :-) Thanks.
Steve
(in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
< more of the usual snipped to spare everyone the agony>
> Be on the winning team... join Christ's team.
>
It's on my list of "things to do". Will I need a password?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:15:26 -0500, John9212112 wrote
> (in message <20031206161526...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
>
> >> From: Steve nos...@nospam.com
>
> >> "Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
> >> disagrees with someone else.
> >>
> >> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
> >
> > Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
>
> Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
> word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
> definition.
He appears to be writing truthfully.
Truth is called Humpty-Dumpty-speak by the untruthful.
> >>> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be
> off
> >>> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.
> >>
> >> I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
> >> disease that discussion of it is appropriate here.
> > [....]
> > Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
> > disease?
>
> If one follows your logic, we can dispense with the whole
> alt.support.diet hierarchy of groups and simply discuss them here.
Folks on diets that fail need "support."
Folks on the 2PD approach don't fail.
> And
> since cooking relates to food which relates to obesity which relates to
> heart disease, why not collapse all the cooking and food groups into
> here too.
Obsessions with cooking and food contributes to obesity. Pointing
that out is certainly appropriate here in SMC but would raise the ire
of Pastorio and his ilk in the cooking and food Usenet groups.
>
> And since genetics, smoking, how old you are, what sex you are, where
> you live, your psychological makeup, etc. are also risk factors we can
> collapse the related groups into here also.
They certainly can be discussed here in the context of cardiac risk
factors. Discussing smoking cessation as it relates to heart disease
is certainly on-topic here.
> With a little effort we
> could probably collapse the whole of usenet into sci.med.cardiology,
> simplifying things for everyone tremendously.
Being as I have not appointed myself to be a Usenet cop as you have,
Steve, you won't see me turning anyone away. Even libelers like
Pastorio are welcome here. Note that he and I are having a civil
discussion about saturated fats in the adjoining thread despite his
hatred of me and the 2PD approach.
> >
> >> Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
> >> appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
> >> here.
> >> You can't have it both ways.
> >
> > I don't think you can legitimately claim that what has been going on here is
> > "criticism" except in its basest form.
>
> As you have shown in another thread, you are unfamiliar with "what has
> been going on here". I suggest you do some googling and return when
> you have some facts.
John has written that he has been lurking for a while. Googling would
only serve to refresh his memory.
> > Dr. Chung has presented a rational
> > case for 2PD on his web site.
>
> Reasonable people can disagree on what is "rational".
Irrational people can sound reasonable.
> > I don't see the Trolling Team providing
> > anything
> > rational at all......just a lot of Bwahahaha. If there is a rational
> > argument
> > against 2PD, let's hear it.
Well, Steve?
> > Don't bother presenting the silly arguments that
> > violate common sense (e.g., 2 lbs of chocolate per day, etc.) Besides, Dr.
> > Chung has addressed all these on his web site. Come on, give me something
> > rational. Surely, you can do that, can't you?
>
> Several people have provided extensive rational arguments.
All debunked.
See:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> The fact
> that you are unfamiliar with them does not make them any less rational.
Given he's been lurking, he probably seen them firsthand. You may
provide Google links to refresh his memory if you choose.
> Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
Why not you?
Don't you know how to use Google?
> but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
> faith
The untruthful are blind to the truth.
> and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
> so.
A quick google check on the Steve nos...@nospam.com combination would
reveal that you have been wasting your time with being untruthful for
a long time.
> >
> >> It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
> >> Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
> >> originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
> >> called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?
> >
> > You introduce it and then slam it.
>
> You are simply wrong and cannot back this up.
I suspect he can.
> >> this assertion only makes you look to
> > be
> > the fanatics.
> >>
> >> If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
> >> fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?
> >
> > Give me a rational argument.
>
> Again, rational arguments have been provided.
See above.
> Since you appear to be
> unfamiliar with the full history of these dialogs, you are hardly in a
> position to judge whether or not they were rational.
Given that he reports being a lurker for a long time, it would appear
that he is familar with the full history.
> However, that is
> not the point I was making.
That's is Steve-speak for "you got me but I will not surrender."
> You were questioning the legitimacy of our
> challenging Chung, not it's rationality. It is of the nature of human
> beings to disagree. If it is legitimate for one side to present their
> viewpoint, it is surely legitimate for the other side to present theirs
> without being accused of "trolling", no matter that the term is
> misapplied.
Why do you care about being called a "Troll," Steve?
It did not seem to bother you before.
>
> Chung himself has said elsewhere in this thread (and in others) that he
> welcomes our participation. So what's _your_ problem?
It would appear that John's original post did not describe either a
problem or complaint but an observation. An observation that appears
to raise your ire. The real question is "why do you have a problem
with others making truthful observations that reflect negatively on
you?"
>
>
> >
> >> If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
> >> on religion and the 2PD;
> >
> > And why should he quit posting on 2PD? Maybe he (and others) should also
> > quit posting on aspirin or EKG?
>
> There are not other usenet groups dedicated to aspirin and EKG. It is
> one thing to recommend that people with heart problems lose weight. It
> is something else to expound on a particular pet diet
The 2PD approach is the only one that I have seen work for everybody.
> and disparge
> others.
Truth by its nature disparages the untruthful.
> The former would be an appropriate discussion in this group;
> the latter would be more appropriate in one of the diet groups.
Ad hominem attacks as perpetrated by you is not appropriate anywhere,
Steve.
> Also, if Chung had a private label aspirin which was promoted on his
> website, advocating it here while disparging other brands of aspirin
> would be inappropriate as would cross posting his advertisements "as a
> convenience" to completely unrelated groups such as rec.arts.cooking.
If I gave the aspirin away for free, it would not be promoting.
Truth is simple.
> And if his arguments for his private label brand of aspirin were
> specious, it would also be legitimate for people to challenge him.
Depends on the manner of the challenge.
> >
> > And why should he quit being himself and letting his faith show. If you want
> > to see some REAL off-topic religion discussions...
>
> Ah, but I don't. That's the point... get it?
Then why are you here, Steve?
> >> --
> >> God's Other Humble Servant
> >
> > Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
> > Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.
>
> It's called "parody"... you could look it up while you are googling.
Some would call it mockery.
The "King of the Jews" sign above the head of a dying Jesus was
mockery.
> If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
> discussion.
Truthful would be better.
> If you simply want to hurl accusations based on made up
> "facts", you are no better than Chung and I don't plan on having
> discussions with two Chungs... one is frustrating enough :-)
Truth frustrates the untruthful.
> And at
> this point, you are not even a good Chung.
He has been truthful, however.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com> nos...@heartmdphd.com
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message news:<osl4tvs2ado45tjc4...@4ax.com>...
>> Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:55:28 -0500 in article
>> <3FD25050...@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> <cardio...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> 06 Dec 2003 20:35:35 GMT in article
>> >> <20031206153535...@mb-m28.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
>> >> (John9212112) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
>> >> >saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.
>> >>
>> >> So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie?
>> >
>> >Actually, he now remembers and is being truthful.
>> >
>> How on earth can you possibly _know_ that?
>
>It is what he wrote.
>
No it isn't. He wrote: "_maybe_ I saw a post from you one time with some
_possibly_ useful web references. Yo are a sloppy reader (or twist what
you read). He is not actually remembering, or that's what he writes, he
just thinks he may remember.
>> Is he your alter-ego?
>> >
>> >Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
>> >
>> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.
>
>What is a Christ-complex?
>
See
<http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/npd/69510/latest/1>
>> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.
>
>What is a Christ-complex?
>
See above
Steve
(in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
<Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
Chung, you really need to get some new material. Your lack of
imagination is showing. Why not take a break (we'll keep your place
warm), troll another group or two, and come back refreshed with some
new put-downs and non-sequiturs.
There are 262 groups in the alt.religion hierarchy, for example. If you
pitied, say 2 people per group per day, that's over 500 new
opportunities to witness and be humble every day. You could probably
dazzle us with new stuff on your return. Maybe Mu will even be back by
then and you could do the old Good Chung - Bad Chung routine with him.
It'd be like old times.
I hate to see you run down like this, spouting the same tired drivel
over and over. Where is the Chung of Old with such innovations as the
2PD, the iMAX Scientific Method, the Libel Suit, the Gift of Truth
Discernment, the Reverse Logic Syllogism, the Appeal to the Proper
Authorities, the Raft of Faith, etc.?
I know you are not washed-up... I know you can do it... I know you can
rise to new heights of absurdity... don't let us down!
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 0:38:31 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <ac9e79567b2d41fb...@news.teranews.com>):
>
> > Steve wrote:
> >
> >> <snip>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to
> >
>
> Newsflash for Chung and anyone else who has difficulty with
> comprehension: No one said or implied that it did.
You implied it with the above.
> If it did inhibit
> you, now _that_ would be a welcome Newsflash :-)
But not the truth. Why do you welcome untruths, Steve?
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <a not surprising case study of mental illness snipped>
Reminds me of:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
You have my pity *and my love, neighbor.
You truly remain in my prayers that you be cured of your pathological obsessions.
Humble servant of Christ,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> >From: ma...@sorbet.nothere
>
> >
> >Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
> >truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
> >he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
> >Matt
>
> I don't think Dr. Chung claims any such thing. What he does is claim to be
> speaking truthfully. Big difference. Not really any different than what one
> is asked to do when testifying in a court of law. He is claiming to be
> speaking the truth as he knows it, not an absolute truth in a logical sense. I
> am also doing the same thing here. Speaking truthfully, that is. I hope you
> are too. But I do wonder.....
>
> John
Hang in there, brother. The beauty about being truthful is that it is effortless.
There is no sweat on our brow :-)
Humbly,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You needn't do that, brother. I am far from perfect. However, we can wish we were
more like our Lord for he is perfect.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
You are writing truthfully.
Keep it up. They hiss but they have been de-fanged.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> 07 Dec 2003 00:21:06 GMT in article
> <20031206192106...@mb-m04.aol.com> john9...@aol.com
> (John9212112) wrote:
> <snip>
> >I hope for the return of civil discourse and reasoned discussion to this group.
> >
> The why don't you set an example by starting from yourself?
John has been civil. He can't help it if the truth hurts you.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> John9212112 wrote:
> >>From: Steve nos...@nospam.com
> >
> >
> >>"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
> >>disagrees with someone else.
> >>
> >>I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
> >
> > Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
>
> Nice bit of editing, fraud-boy.
Since when does writing truthfully constitute fraud?
Perhaps you should go back to reading from a dictionary.
> Snip out the fullness of it and make
> up a self-serving definition.
You are confusing truth-serving with self-serving.
> You're merely a shabby imitation of
> fraud Chung.
You are confusing John with Steve.
> A shadow of a shadow...
>
> Pastorio
Your confusion appears to be a pathological manifestation of your
obsessions.
You have both my pity and my love, neighbor.
You remain in my prayers that you be cured of your mental problems.
Steve
(in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
> Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<0001HW.BBF759CA...@news-50.giganews.com>...
>> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 0:38:31 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <ac9e79567b2d41fb...@news.teranews.com>):
>>
>>> Steve wrote:
>>>
>>>> <snip>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to
>>>> post on religion and the 2PD;
>>>
>>> Newsflash: Your hanging around does not inhibit me.
>>
>> Newsflash for Chung and anyone else who has difficulty with
>> comprehension: No one said or implied that it did.
>
> You implied it with the above.
See, Chung, this is a little problem you seem to have with something
called "logic" (logic is only unwelcome to the illogical).
The proposition "If A, Then B" does not in any way imply "If not A,
then not B", except to the, well, illogical.
The point being made, which you either misunderstood or more likely
chose to misunderstand, was that without the first cause of your posts,
there would be no "Trolling Team" posts. See if you can misunderstand
that... I'll bet you can :-)
>
>> If it did inhibit
>> you, now _that_ would be a welcome Newsflash :-)
>
> But not the truth. Why do you welcome untruths, Steve?
How can anyone read this drivel of yours and credit you? If this sort
of word-gamesmanship is the best that you can do, I have overestimated
you. Oh, wait... I know... "the overestimated are the first to
overestimate".
Have you ever heard of an Idiot-Savant? I think I am going to enter
that diagnosis into Matti's Chung Diagnosis Sweepstakes. Sheesh.
--
God's Other Humble Servant
Steve
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:22:11 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
>
> > Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<0001HW.BBF77D62...@news-50.giganews.com>...
> >> On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:34:44 -0500, Bob Pastorio wrote
> >> (in message <vt419c4...@corp.supernews.com>):
> >>
> >>>> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping
> >>>> people with their medical
> >>>> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.
> >>
> >> Well, Chung, I'm sorry to say it doesn't. It could just as easily
> >> "prove" that you have adopted a marketing strategy of dispensing free
> >> medical advice to draw people to your web site where they are solicited
> >> to become your patients.
> >
> > The problem with that suggestion is that both my web site and my
> > presence on Usenet *predate* my cardiology practice.
>
> So you are saying you were a cardiologist who didn't practice?
At the time, paid by Emory and NIH and did not own a practice.
> Hmm.
> Wonder why?
Was not ready.
> Or are you saying you weren't a cardiologist but posed as
> one?
See above.
>
> Whatever.
Perhaps you should care more about the truth.
> The point is that you practice *now* and you solicit *now*.
To prove cause and effect, the temporal association must exist.
You claim that there is profit-motive (cause) leading to the effect (my web and
Usenet presence).
The lack of a temporal association disproves your claim.
>
> I was merely pointing out that there are other possible explanations
> for your participation here than the one you cite, hence your "proof"
> is incomplete to say the least.
Only if you ignore history.
> Another possible explanation, for example, is that you participate in a
> misguided attempt to lure souls into your wacko fundamentalist sect.
That explanation is easily debunked by the fact I don't run a sect,
fundamentalist or otherwise.
>
> Another is that you are lonely and bored.
That explanation is debunked by the fact that there are folks like you hanging
around.
> Another is that you are a
> troll.
>
That explanation is debunked by your looking in the mirror.
>
> I'm not saying that any of these is the "real" reason, only that the
> mere fact of your participation does not "prove" anything except that
> you participate.
It continues to *serve* to prove that there is love in my heart for my neighbors,
including you.
If I were to turn you away, or state that because of your hatred, that I would
not ever help you, then that would *serve* to prove that there is not love in my
heart for you, neighbor.
> Please do me the favor of not snipping parts of this
> away to make it appear that I am saying something that I am not.
>
When I snip, it is to make it easier for folks to get to the important point,
especially for those who have been following and do not need to reread
everything. For those new to the discussion, they can always go to the archives
to retrieve anything.
>
> >
> >>> If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,
> >
> > What proportion of the world's population resides in Georgia, do you
> > think?
>
> I dunno. What does it matter?
The answer illustrates what proportion of my efforts may actually benefit my
practice even if the "advertising" were my motivation.
> Six Billion times a small fraction is
> still more that you could probably handle alone.
Not with God's help.
> What fraction of all
> the people who receive spam email buy something as a result?
That fraction would be distributed world-wide.
> By all
> accounts, a fraction of a fraction of a percent... but still enough to
> make it a lucrative business.
>
My practice is already lucrative and yet I am here.
>
> And are you saying that you would turn away a patient who didn't live
> in Georgia?
>
Depends on the patient and his/her problem. If I don't think I can help, even if
offered a billion dollars, I would turn the patient away.
>
> >
> >>> 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
> >>> inform
> >>> me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username and password
> >>> to
> >>> allow a preview.
> >
> > Thank you for proving that my website is not a marketing ploy. What
> > marketing program tells potential customers that they might be turned
> > away or there may not be a "fit" ?
>
> Well, Chung, there you go again claiming I have "proved" something. I
> suppose your "logic" goes something like this:
>
> All marketing ploys are smart
If it is a ploy, it should be.
>
> Chung's marketing ploy is dumb
This casting doubt on your claim that Chung's christian behavior is a marketing
ploy.
>
> Therefore, Chung's marketing ploy cannot be a marketing ploy.
>
The logic serves to disprove your claim.
>
> Newsflash (I know you like them): All marketing ploys are not smart.
> Bzzt! Syllogism breaks.
>
Newsflash: Christian behavior is not a marketing ploy.
>
> >
> >>> The more information you email, the more likely my decision
> >>> to send you a temporary username and password.
> >
> > What marketing strategy entails telling people that it is unlikely
> > that services or a product will be available for them?
>
> Newsflash: Many "marketing strategies" "qualify the customer" up front
> to winnow out tire kickers, people without medical insurance, cranks,
> chefs, Ethics Board Investigators, law enforcement agents, etc.
>
Those sound like marketing strategies of your own devising so that you can
continue to be argumentative. You probably wanted to snip this instead of
responding but that would undermine your request for me not to snip.
>
> So it is not remarkable at all that one might turn away customers who
> aren't fit. Next question?
>
> BTW, I will grant you that you are not a marketing genius if that is
> any consolation :-) But what is at issue here is intent, not results.
>
Actually, the fact is my practice is lucrative, so your argument probably would
have been stronger had you made the results the issue.
You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to intent:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
>
> >
> >>> If you like what you see and
> >>> learn from this web site 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)
> >>
> >> Would you have us believe that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and the myriad
> >> of other companies offering "free services" are simply doing it because
> >> they love their neighbors?
> >
> > Depends on whether the folks who are running those companies are
> > Christians.
>
> OK. Let me see if I follow that... I'm still learning Chungspeak, you
> know :-)
>
> If the folks running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,
> et al are Christians
> Then they run these free web sites because they
> love their neighbors.
>
If they are Christians, the latter becomes more probable.
>
> Ergo, by logic, we must conclude that
>
> If these web sites are not run by the folks at Google,
> Yahoo, Microsoft, et al because they love their neighbors
> Then they cannot be Christians.
>
If motives for doing things are not centered on love for others, it becomes less
likely that the involved folks are Christian.
>
> Is that about the size of what you are saying?
>
Nope. See above.
>
> Always good to have these little chats with you, Brother :-)
>
You are welcome to call me brother when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and
Savior, neighbor.
Please be sure to let me know when you do.
Meanwhile, you will remain in my prayers that the Holy Spirit will move you to
see and know the truth.
>
> --
> God's Other Humble Servant
>
> Steve
You are worshiping the wrong god, Steve.
Humble servant of Christ,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
It seems to be a game to you.
>
> --
> God's Other Humble Servant
>
> Steve
You are worshipping the wrong god, Steve. This is an observation rather
than an accusation.
Humble servant of Christ,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Complex592
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:07:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
>
> < more of the usual snipped to spare everyone the agony>
>
> > Be on the winning team... join Christ's team.
> >
>
> It's on my list of "things to do". Will I need a password?
>
Yes. You'll find it in the Bible.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
The article does not describe Christ-complex. You probably misunderstood the article because English is
your *fifth* language.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:46:41 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
>
> <Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
>
> Chung, you really need to get some new material.
That above seems to be Steve-speak for "there is too much sweat on my
brow. Fighting the truth is hard. I need to take a nap."
Humble servant of Christ,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Steve
(in message <989933e19d334be8...@news.teranews.com>):
> Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:46:41 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <a4b1bd78.03120...@posting.google.com>):
>>
>> <Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>
>>
>> Chung, you really need to get some new material.
>
> That above seems to be Steve-speak for "there is too much sweat on my
> brow. Fighting for the truth is hard. I need to take a nap."
>
> Humble servant of Christ,
>
> Andrew
Well, you are right about one thing, oh great Teller of Truths...
dealing with you _is_ tiring. I think I _will_ take a nap. Thanks for
the advice, Doc.
Bob Pastorio
> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vt51tp7...@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>><a not surprising case study of mental illness snipped>
>
> Reminds me of:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
It should only remind you that you are a quack, fraud, mountebank and
generally dishonest hustler.
The rest of your website is designed to troll the internet and snare
more patients for you. A bad marketing idea, badly developed and badly
implemented.
> You have my pity *and my love, neighbor.
Here's a terribly sad but truthful picture that apparently struck a
nerve with Chung. Posted by Pastorio but avoided by quacksalver Chung.
>>Love, n.
>>1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
>>persons.
>>2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of
acting.
>>3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
>>opposite sex.
>>4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart;
>>a lover.
>>5. sexual passion or its gratification.
>>6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
>>7. in tennis, a score of zero.
>>8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
>>devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
>>brotherhood that people should have for each other.
>>
> Would subscribe to the latter.
And yet, Chung's actions and words tell the real story.
> Don't forget that I have written that if I encountered you dying
> somewhere (ie on a cath table), that I would not hesitate to
> resuscitate you. This would prove the feeling of benevolent
concern > I would have for you, neighbor.
Nah. That's some untestable braggadocio. The history of Chung's words
say that benevolence isn't important. The words he uses and the claims
he makes and the boasts he offers say that his concern is egotistical
rather than benevolent. Once again, he lies, deliberately or because
of his mental infirmities.
That "benevolence" that will never be in a position to be seen proves
nothing; a theoretical boast. But his statement of it further proves
the accusation of his lack of honesty.
>>Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
>>1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
>>2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
>>Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving,
>>beneficence, bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity,
>>kindheartedness,kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.
>>
> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely
helping > people with their medical questions should serve to prove
that I
> indeed love my neighbors.
Chung's denigration of others. his deliberate lying, his deliberate
swaggering, contentiousness, his inevitable dispute with anyone
offering a different opinion, his frequent use of innuendo, and his
general fraudulence and quackery mark him as a person more caught up
in his own unhealthy needs than in anything approaching altruism.
His promotion of the 2PD with all its dangerous flaws marks him as a
superficial thinker. And his recent comment about it being in the
"public domain" and therefore known to other physicians only serves to
reinforce the idea that egotism not altruism motivates him. It would
seem that he actually believes that responsible health care providers
would endorse this one-dimensional approach.
>>>You also remain in my prayers.
>>
>>Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
>>who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.
>
> How do you feign a prayer?
Chung is so cute when he deliberately "misunderstands." Chung feigns
piety when he is actually using it as another weapon in his arsenal of
broken arrows.
>> "And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.
>
> So it shall.
>
>>>May God cure you of your obsessions soon.
>>
>>It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this
>
> Who's pretending?
The fraud Chung is pretending to have knowledge of a medical
discipline not in his line of work.
>>that create the setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung
>>a...
>>
> Could it be that Pastorio is growing wiser?
Pastorio continues to spotlight fraud, chicanery, innuendo, fakery,
quackery, malice and hypocrisy. Look where the light shines...
>>Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
>>1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
>>a particular field.
>>2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
>>fraudulent practitioner.
>>Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender
>
> Guess not:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
Poor Chung is wounded by the lack of respect he so richly deserves, in
his mind.
It's hilarious reading his TV lawyer words on this page. It's also
instructive how Chung tries to make words mean what they don't. And
tries to make things in context mean something else.
If it's deliberate, he's a liar. If it's because of some deficiency in
his reading or comprehension skills, it's considerably more serious.
His response to the "Mel Hall" post referred to at the top of this
note would imply that he truly can't read and understand. That has
implications for his medical practice and his patients.
De-lus'-ion, n.
1. the act of deluding; deception; a misleading of the mind.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion
4. in psychiatry, a false, persistent belief not substantiated by
sensory evidence.
synonyms - illusion, fallacy, deception, error, hallucination.
De-lu'-sive, a.
1. apt to deceive; tending to mislead; deceptive, beguiling...
2. characterized by delusion; deceptive.
> Humbly,
Hum'-ble, n.
1. having or showing a consciousness of one's defects or shortcomings;
not proud; not self-assertive; modest.
synonyms. - lowly, meek, submissive, unassuming, unobtrusive, unassuming.
Hu-mil'-i-ty, n.
1. the state or quality of being humble of mind or spirit; absence of
pride or self-assertion.
2. [pl] acts of self-abasement.
It's likewise telling that, even after being shown the sorts of
definitions that rational people employ, Chung persists in adhering to
his obviously fake self-descriptions.
> You truly remain in my prayers that you be cured of your pathological obsessions.
Chung cuts everything (that, again, highlights his chicanery) from the
post and offers a yet another "diagnosis" in a field clearly outside
anything he actually is qualified to practice in. He is pretending to
knowledge he clearly doesn't have. His "observations" demonstrate his
incompetence and pretension.
That's the classic definition of quackery. Of a quack. Of fraudulent
practice. Of deliberate dishonesty.
Chung is, by definition, by behavior and by choices of words, a quack.
Pastorio
Steve
(in message <64d66a46fcb9097c...@news.teranews.com>):
> Steve wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:59:21 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <a4b1bd78.0312...@posting.google.com>):
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Twisters are the quickest at accusing others of twisting.
>>
>> People who hate God are the quickest at accusing others of hating God.
>>
>> People who aren't True Christians are the quickest to accuse others of
>> not being True Christians.
>>
>> Libelers are the quickest to accuse others of libeling.
>>
>> Mushroom eaters are the quickest to accuse others of eating mushrooms.
>>
>> I see how to play _this_ game, Chung :-) Thanks.
>>
>
> It seems to be a game to you.
>
You mean it's not? I thought we were playing "I'll make a statement
and you try to twist it into it's reverse".
Surely you're not telling me that you expect anyone to take your
sophomoric, leaden reverse aphorisms seriously?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vt51tp7...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> >><a not surprising case study of mental illness snipped>
> >
> > Reminds me of:
> >
> > http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
>
> <libelous statements written out of desperate obsessive hatred snipped>
FYI Note: I am aware that this thread displays psychological pathology in a participant (Pastorio)
that may be distressing for some SMC readers. If you are bothered by it, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Pastorio
(2) Report Pastorio to his ISP so that the may help him with needed psychiatric intervention.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His
participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of
community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious
beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound
diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet
approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads.
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have
redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to
be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under
the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of
starting "flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were
made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal
weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual
diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's
credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr.
Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the
darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can
easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials
were bought are easily and summarily debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who
continue to hiss (ie Steve nos...@nospam.com):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.
It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut
gallery.
Sincerely,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:34:10 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <2a53ffe7b882e15e...@news.teranews.com>):
>
> > Bob Pastorio wrote:
> >
> >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
> >>> news:<vt51tp7...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >>>
> >>>> <a not surprising case study of mental illness snipped>
> >>>
> >>> Reminds me of:
> >>>
> >>> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
> >>
> >> <libelous statements written out of desperate obsessive hatred snipped>
> >
> > FYI Note: I am aware that this thread displays psychological pathology in a
> > participant (Pastorio)
>
> > <snip>
>
> Ah, the Dreaded Macro. A sure sign that Chung has left the Field of
> Intellectual Battle in disgrace.
Still here. Sorry to disappoint.
> The internet equivalent of covering
> your eyes and ears and shouting over and over "I can't hear you!".
>
In Mr. Pastorio's case, it is for his therapy. One ought not to continue feeding
his obsessive psychoses.
>
> Only the Untruthful Must Resort to Macros.
>
The Macros really strike a raw nerve in you, doesn't they Steve?
>
> First Chung says he welcomes criticism then he urges everyone to
> killfille his critics.
>
Suggestions are hardly urgings.
>
> --
> God's Other Humble Servant
>
> Steve
You still appear to worshipping the wrong god, Steve,
When will you learn?
Humble servant of Christ,
Andrew,
Bob Pastorio
> Steve <nos...@nospam.com> wrote in message news:<0001HW.BBF7C95D...@news-50.giganews.com>...
>
>>On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:15:26 -0500, John9212112 wrote
>>(in message <20031206161526...@mb-m28.aol.com>):
>
>>>>From: Steve nos...@nospam.com
>>
>>>>"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>>>>disagrees with someone else.
>>>>
>>>>I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
>>>
>>>Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.
>>
>>Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
>>word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
>>definition.
>
> He appears to be writing truthfully.
>
> Truth is called Humpty-Dumpty-speak by the untruthful.
Nah. What Chung does is "Humpty-Dumpty" speak. It's when he makes up
his own definition of a common word that flies in the face of common
or dictionary words. Like when he calls himself humble and he's really
being arrogant. Bullshit is called Humpty-Dumpty speak by the truthful.
>>>>>Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be
>>>> off topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.
>>>>
>>>>I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
>>>>disease that discussion of it is appropriate here.
>>>
>>>[....]
>>>Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
>>>disease?
>>
>>If one follows your logic, we can dispense with the whole
>>alt.support.diet hierarchy of groups and simply discuss them here.
>
> Folks on diets that fail need "support."
>
> Folks on the 2PD approach don't fail.
Funny thing how "Mel Hall" wrote that 48 out of 55 people who started
the diet in the one case completed it. Looks like some fail. Chung
didn't seem to accept the material in the post from "Mel" as requoted
here. The one praising Chung's "diet" and Mu. The one where "she" said
that her ex-husband put dozens and dozens of people on the "diet" and
*some* stuck with it. Poor Chung now has to figure out how to accept
the "testimonial" but erase the "fact" that some failed.
>> And
>>since cooking relates to food which relates to obesity which relates to
>>heart disease, why not collapse all the cooking and food groups into
>>here too.
>
> Obsessions with cooking and food contributes to obesity. Pointing
> that out is certainly appropriate here in SMC but would raise the ire
> of Pastorio and his ilk in the cooking and food Usenet groups.
Of course it wouldn't raise anyone's ire. Obsessions with cooking
likely won't lead to obesity as it's excessive caloric consumption and
insufficient metabolizing of those calories that cause most obesity. I
don't believe that I've ever met anyone obsessed with cooking, per se.
Wise consumption of high quality materials, respectfully and
interestingly treated is the best goal for people who are interested
in food. But that would be beyond Chung's capacity for understanding
despite being Chinese, the one culture that has developed cuisine
further than the French. Chung rejects his heritage and his cultural
roots as easily as truth.
> Being as I have not appointed myself to be a Usenet cop as you have,
> Steve, you won't see me turning anyone away. Even libelers like
> Pastorio are welcome here.
Even liars, frauds and quacks like Chung are welcome here. As though
Chung could do anything about them, anyway.
Chung keeps "forgetting" that libel needs to be false to be so
defined. That's why he doesn't do anything about what he terms the
libel of others. He doesn't want to look even more stupid than he
already does.
> Note that he and I are having a civil
> discussion about saturated fats in the adjoining thread despite his
> hatred of me and the 2PD approach.
Chung thinks we're only talking about saturated fats. Shitwit
apparently doesn't seem to notice that we're talking about a good deal
more than just that and he doesn't know what he's talking about. He
wants to consume only oils that are liquid at refrigerator
temperatures. Wonderful. That viewpoint suits his crippled
understadning of teh role of food in human society. I wonder if he
remembers enough Chinese to consider the daily greetings that pass
between people. He seems most assuredly not to remember the spirit of
hospitality and generosity indigenous to all the Chinese cultures.
Crabbed Chung who show more and more how he worships teh body adn
fears its natural actions and reactions. Chung is afraid of his dining
table and the normal things of being alive and shows that fear daily
with his frightened posts. He said he replaced his amalgam fillings on
teh off-chance they could be harmful. What a man of science who
doesn't bother to look deeper than teh surface fear.
His knowledge of nutrition is even more shallow than his knowledge of
psychiatry that he uses to make "diagnoses" of the mental states of
others.
How can anyone hate a clown? His "diet" is even more hilarious than he
is. He obviously needs a dictionary for even the most basic of
communications. He can't seem to see the difference between hatred and
bemused contempt. But it serves his twisted purposes to see himself as
a persecuted victim of others. That's better, in his sadly crippled
mind, than stopping to consider if he's wrong.
>>>>Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
>>>>appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
>>>>here.
>>>>You can't have it both ways.
>>>
>>>I don't think you can legitimately claim that what has been going on here is
>>>"criticism" except in its basest form.
>>
>>As you have shown in another thread, you are unfamiliar with "what has
>>been going on here". I suggest you do some googling and return when
>>you have some facts.
>
> John has written that he has been lurking for a while. Googling would
> only serve to refresh his memory.
Then why doesn't he do that?
>>>Dr. Chung has presented a rational
>>>case for 2PD on his web site.
>>
>>Reasonable people can disagree on what is "rational".
>
> Irrational people can sound reasonable.
And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses.
>>> I don't see the Trolling Team providing
>>>anything rational at all......just a lot of Bwahahaha. If there is a rational
>>>argument against 2PD, let's hear it.
>
> Well, Steve?
Old territory. Been done again and again. "John" seems unable to do
his own homework before spouting his crap.
>>>Don't bother presenting the silly arguments that
>>>violate common sense (e.g., 2 lbs of chocolate per day, etc.) Besides, Dr.
>>>Chung has addressed all these on his web site. Come on, give me something
>>>rational. Surely, you can do that, can't you?
>>
>>Several people have provided extensive rational arguments.
>
> All debunked.
Wishful thinking on Chung's part. As so much is.
> See:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Quackery masquerading as medical information.
>> The fact
>>that you are unfamiliar with them does not make them any less rational.
>
> Given he's been lurking, he probably seen them firsthand. You may
> provide Google links to refresh his memory if you choose.
Perhaps someone with the poor memory that "John" both claims and
demonstrates would do as the injunction suggests. God helps those who
help themselves.
>>Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
>
> Why not you?
Trying to teach a pig to sing is futile. It won't work and is merely
likely to upset the pig.
> Don't you know how to use Google?
Apparently "John" doesn't.
>>but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
>>faith
>
> The untruthful are blind to the truth.
And, as any plumber knows, shit flows downhill.
>>and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
>>so.
>
> A quick google check on the Steve nos...@nospam.com combination would
> reveal that you have been wasting your time with being untruthful for
> a long time.
Another case of Chung's famous technique of assertion without proof.
Spotlighting Chung's fragile grasp on reality is what Steve has done.
It's a public service.
In Chungspeak's wonderful perversion of English, truthful=whatever
Chung says. Disagreeing with Chung or, worse, pointing out his fakery
is "untruthful" to him. I bet Chung has the novel "1984" memorized.
Now if he would just use English as though he actually spoke it rather
than that ESL approach he's famous for.
>>>>It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
>>>>Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
>>>>originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
>>>>called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?
>>>
>>>You introduce it and then slam it.
>>
>>You are simply wrong and cannot back this up.
>
> I suspect he can.
Chung suspects that "John" can back it up. Note that neither Chung nor
"John" has done so.
>> >> this assertion only makes you look to
>>>>>be the fanatics.
>>>
>>>>If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
>>>>fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?
>>>
>>>Give me a rational argument.
>>
>>Again, rational arguments have been provided.
But none is necessary beyond the notice that this is usenet with all
the freedom implicit in the form. It requires no "rational argument"
beyond "res ipsa loquitur" to demonstrate it. Any opinion has currency
on usenet, even the wacko "diet" foolishness that Chung espouses.
Likewise its too-easy debunking. All grist for this mill.
> See above.
>
>
>> Since you appear to be
>>unfamiliar with the full history of these dialogs, you are hardly in a
>>position to judge whether or not they were rational.
>
> Given that he reports being a lurker for a long time, it would appear
> that he is familar with the full history.
And, lamentably, he has shown himself to be even more shallow than
Chung/Mu. With a bad memory, to boot. His familiarity "with the full
history" was never so clear as when he tried to back away from what he
posted and tried to claim it as a "mistake."
>> However, that is
>>not the point I was making.
>
> That's is Steve-speak for "you got me but I will not surrender."
>
>>You were questioning the legitimacy of our
>>challenging Chung, not it's rationality. It is of the nature of human
>>beings to disagree. If it is legitimate for one side to present their
>>viewpoint, it is surely legitimate for the other side to present theirs
>>without being accused of "trolling", no matter that the term is
>>misapplied.
>
> Why do you care about being called a "Troll," Steve?
>
> It did not seem to bother you before.
<applause> Great job by Chung to try to change the subject to Steve
rather than the crux of the discourse. Bzzzzzzzzt. Back to topic; the
legitimacy of contradicting Chung. Nature of the human situation and
the nature of usenet. Chung is free to say what he will and so is
everybody else.
>>Chung himself has said elsewhere in this thread (and in others) that he
>>welcomes our participation. So what's _your_ problem?
>
> It would appear that John's original post did not describe either a
> problem or complaint but an observation. An observation that appears
> to raise your ire. The real question is "why do you have a problem
> with others making truthful observations that reflect negatively on
> you?"
Not quite. The "real question" is how stupid is "John" to make his
easily refuted lies and obfuscations? His "observations" were rather
easily demolished. This demonstrate even further what a
liar-by-insinuation Chung is in posting this, above.
>>>>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
>>>>on religion and the 2PD;
>>>
>>>And why should he quit posting on 2PD? Maybe he (and others) should also
>>>quit posting on aspirin or EKG?
>>
>>There are not other usenet groups dedicated to aspirin and EKG. It is
>>one thing to recommend that people with heart problems lose weight. It
>>is something else to expound on a particular pet diet
>
> The 2PD approach is the only one that I have seen work for everybody.
Except for those for whom it doesn't work. Notice that Chung has
offered nothing beyond his obviously dishonest word about it. And what
about the evidence offered by Mu's friend Doctor Mel Hall when she
says that a good percentage never make it?
>>and disparge others.
>
> Truth by its nature disparages the untruthful.
<LOL> So when Chung spouts his uninformed nonsense about alternate
dietary approaches, what does it do? Disparages Chung. So when Chung
offers his lies, what does it do? Disparage Chung.
>> The former would be an appropriate discussion in this group;
>>the latter would be more appropriate in one of the diet groups.
>
> Ad hominem attacks as perpetrated by you is not appropriate anywhere,
> Steve.
Chung, the nasty master of ad hominem innuendo and insinuation points
his blackened finger at anyone else? What astonishing but typical
hypocrisy.
>>Also, if Chung had a private label aspirin which was promoted on his
>>website, advocating it here while disparging other brands of aspirin
>>would be inappropriate as would cross posting his advertisements "as a
>>convenience" to completely unrelated groups such as rec.arts.cooking.
>
> If I gave the aspirin away for free, it would not be promoting.
>
> Truth is simple.
Only for the simpleminded.
>>And if his arguments for his private label brand of aspirin were
>>specious, it would also be legitimate for people to challenge him.
>
> Depends on the manner of the challenge.
Fraud deserves the most strenuous challenge.
>>>And why should he quit being himself and letting his faith show. If you want
>>>to see some REAL off-topic religion discussions...
>>
>>Ah, but I don't. That's the point... get it?
>
> Then why are you here, Steve?
Try again here. Steve is *not* here to see posts by Chung where he
prattles on his fundamentalist, cultist brand of Chungianity.
>>>>God's Other Humble Servant
>>>
>>>Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
>>>Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.
>>
>>It's called "parody"... you could look it up while you are googling.
>
> Some would call it mockery.
And it would be deserved. It mocks a false piety.
> The "King of the Jews" sign above the head of a dying Jesus was
> mockery.
Chung compares himself to Jesus, again.
>>If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
>>discussion.
>
> Truthful would be better.
And with Chung, a novelty.
>> If you simply want to hurl accusations based on made up
>>"facts", you are no better than Chung and I don't plan on having
>>discussions with two Chungs... one is frustrating enough :-)
>
> Truth frustrates the untruthful.
How silly a thing to say. Obfuscation frustrates the truthful. As does
lying, as does malice, as does innuendo and insinuation. Chung's
dishonesty frustrates the truthful.
>> And at
>>this point, you are not even a good Chung.
>
> He has been truthful, however.
Chung can look into "John's" heart and know that. Chung, the font of
faith become knowledge. Chung the fraud and quack.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message news:<vt51tp7...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>
>>>><a not surprising case study of mental illness snipped>
>>>
>>>Reminds me of:
>>>
>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
>>
>><libelous statements written out of desperate obsessive hatred snipped>
>
> FYI Note: I am aware that this thread displays psychological pathology in a participant (Pastorio)
> that may be distressing for some SMC readers. If you are bothered by it, a few suggestions:
>
> (1) Yell at Pastorio
The unfortunate sign of the Chungster hightailing it away from the
field of combat he started. It's when he brings out his Mighty Macro
Machine (tm) that we can see that he's been defeated in his own choice
of belligerent games. He simply can't let stand the words that bring
his pomposity and hubris to its figurative knees.
I bet the next new page on his web site will be the "New, Improved
Chung Delete-o-rama program." It removes all proof of Chung's
incompetence with English, all the definitions of his handicaps, all
unsubstantiated references, all proof that 2PD is silly, all cultist
religious twaddle, and all self-referential embarrassments. All it
leaves, in his case, is the little angle brackets that mark lines plus
his name.
Poor Chung starts the fight and runs screaming when it's brought back
to him. He welcomes the strife he creates, he says. Then he urges all
to complain about it and killfile his successful rebutter.
Bravo, Chung, I say. Bravo. So brave going into the fray unarmed as he
is. It's very impressive watching Chung eat his words. He says he
welcomes the give and take. But look at what actually happens. When he
posts things that hs own actions betray, that's called lying.
The most utterly hilarious signal of his debility is that frantic
"libelous statements written out of desperate obsessive hatred
snipped" and then he proceeds to post exactly the sort of madness that
he has just finished characterizing as "libelous." He offers "mental
illness" as his "diagnosis" of another poster. He says, "I am aware
that this thread displays psychological pathology in a participant
(Pastorio)..." wherein he offers a medical opinion he's not qualified
to make. Pretending to medical knowledge he demonstrably doesn't have.
The word needed here is QUACK.
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
> Steve wrote:
>
>
>>On Mon, 8 Dec 2003 12:34:10 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>>(in message <2a53ffe7b882e15e...@news.teranews.com>):
>>
>>
>>>Bob Pastorio wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Bob Pastorio <past...@rica.net> wrote in message
>>>>>news:<vt51tp7...@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>><a not surprising case study of mental illness snipped>
>>>>>
>>>>>Reminds me of:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
>>>>
>>>><libelous statements written out of desperate obsessive hatred snipped>
>>>
>>>FYI Note: I am aware that this thread displays psychological pathology in a
>>>participant (Pastorio)
>>
>>><snip>
>>
>>Ah, the Dreaded Macro. A sure sign that Chung has left the Field of
>>Intellectual Battle in disgrace.
>
> Still here. Sorry to disappoint.
Miss-the-point Chung, um, misses the point. Again.
>>The internet equivalent of covering
>>your eyes and ears and shouting over and over "I can't hear you!".
>
> In Mr. Pastorio's case, it is for his therapy. One ought not to continue feeding
> his obsessive psychoses.
<LOL> Soooo convincing, Chung's "diagnoses." Just like posting to
another group is for my "convenience." Not a bit <kof> transparent.
And for the others he plays this demented macro game with? Their
therapy, too? Or some other smarmy reasons. The pattern is to trim
everything, characterize it maliciously and hang that macro on it.
Very impressive behavior for a guy who says he welcomes the combat he
creates.
Pretending to medical knowledge again, is he? Quack goes the weasel.
I bet it's really annoying when I strike a nerve with Chung. Why else
would he focus his compulsions like he does about me? And Steve. And
all the others who make his bloated ego retreat. Many of the same
people he complimented a few weeks ago. Can't seem to keep it straight.
Poor guy just can't let go of it. Looks like he has a lot of nerves to
strike. The liar nerve. The quack nerve. The fraud nerve. The
insinuator nerve. The English as Humpty-Dumpty language nerve. All
those nerves. All together now, "On Old Olympus's Towering Tops,
Chung's version of English dances, skips and hops..." Minor edit there
to speak truthfully...
Pastorio