Re: Knowledge of right versus RATS
Pastor Frank
news:MPG.21e596919...@news.readfreenews.net...
>
Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing in
cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.
The controversy arises from Dr. Chung零 other behaviors on s.m.c., in
particular:
o He uses s.m.c. to not only proselytize his particular interpretation
of Christianity, but also to disparage and attack anyone with a
different interpretation or different religion.
Evidence?
o He uses s.m.c. to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet (2PD) and,
in fact, cross posts this information to other groups in order to
gain more exposure.
o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical opinions,
he attacks his challengers as "obsessive anti-Christians",
"libelers", "homosexuals", "people who can靖 understand English",
etc.
Evidence?
o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in
order to "get the dirt" on them and smear their reputations.
Evidence?
o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.
Evidence?
o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of
Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving anything but
humbly.
Evidence?
o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid
killfiles. Mu零 job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a
reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. so that Dr. Chung can
disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
Whereas Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what he says and so
attacks primarily through insinuation and innuendo, Mu零 tactics are
blunt and direct like those of a playground bully.
Evidence?
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung零 egregious behavior
on s.m.c.. If anything, it understates it. Everything can be verified
in the Google archives.
Liar!!! Your accusations are not evident in the Google archives.
The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
medical advice on s.m.c., who cares what else he does?
Many people provide free medical advice on the internet. How does one
know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person giving the
advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor shouldn靖 that be
enough? Unfortunately, no.
Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice.
Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity,
ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by
their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should
be given to their medical advice?
People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person purporting
to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false sense of security
simply because someone displays an MD after their name. It is the
intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
allow them to make an informed decision.
List of Questions Answered
Long lists of accusation with reference to Google archives, but no
citations, are a waste of the reader's time. Get real Rat!!!!! No one is
going to look up Google archives to research whether your accusations might
have any merit or not? We all know you are a fat guy screeching in protest
at
anyone suggesting you eat less, or heaven forbid, go hungry.
As for me, I'm going to put out some rat poison, just in case you fly my
way.
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com