Re: Training Week Ending 11 September 2011

5 views
Skip to first unread message

MU

unread,
Sep 16, 2011, 7:40:05 PM9/16/11
to
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:23:09 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

> I don't think I have ever eaten *half* a banana. Once I open one I
> assume I have to eat the whole thing.

Here we have the ingrained behavior of the modern (post Great
Depression)consumer. It is the result of several/all of the
conditionings a few of which are "clean your plate; no waste" taught by
guilt conditioned parents, the marketing of the USDA, private marketing
of the agricultural megacorporateplex, the fast food industry and
others.

Mr. Earl is amply demonstrating his conditioning as clearly as Alex de
Large was conditioned to hate violence. Both are artificial, neither
inherent from birth, both taught consciously and subconsciously.

Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
- oversconsumption.

http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier

Note that Mr. Earl did not say " I don't think I have ever eaten *half*
a banana. Once I open one I assume I have to /consume all the calories
in it/".

Jason Earl

unread,
Sep 16, 2011, 9:06:41 PM9/16/11
to
On Fri, Sep 16 2011, MU wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:23:09 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> I don't think I have ever eaten *half* a banana. Once I open one I
>> assume I have to eat the whole thing.
>
> Here we have the ingrained behavior of the modern (post Great
> Depression)consumer. It is the result of several/all of the
> conditionings a few of which are "clean your plate; no waste" taught
> by guilt conditioned parents, the marketing of the USDA, private
> marketing of the agricultural megacorporateplex, the fast food
> industry and others.

I have been writing down everything that I eat for the past two years,
and I really think that you are essentially correct. Of course, I don't
blame my parents, the USDA, or the agricultural megacorporateplex.
Eating is fun. If I don't monitor what I eat I eat too much.

> Mr. Earl is amply demonstrating his conditioning as clearly as Alex de
> Large was conditioned to hate violence. Both are artificial, neither
> inherent from birth, both taught consciously and subconsciously.

I prefer the terms introduced in /The Hacker's Diet/. My "eat watch" is
broken.

http://www.fourmilab.ch/hackdiet/

> Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
> - oversconsumption.
>
> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier

I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that when
I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at least at
first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry. Being more
conscious of what I ate was almost more important than how many calories
I took in.

The problem with an eating system like yours is that I think that I
would find it too tempting to game the system. For example, I am pretty
sure that eating two pounds of bacon per day would not be good for me,
but I am also pretty sure that I would at least be tempted to try it. I
know that when I experimented with the Atkins diet I had a *bacon* day.
Eating piles of bacon made me happy (for a bit), but I don't think that
it got me closer to my goal.

Counting calories is not significantly more difficult than simply
weighing your food, and it helps steer me towards foods like vegetables
that are low in calories.

> Note that Mr. Earl did not say " I don't think I have ever eaten
> *half* a banana. Once I open one I assume I have to /consume all the
> calories in it/".

I don't think anyone actually talks like that :).

Jason

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 12:48:49 AM9/17/11
to
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 17:48:25 -0400, Steve Freides wrote:

> One thing I have found that consistently separates those who stay thin
> from those who don't - the former are willing not to finish what's on
> their plate. Mind you, I'm ready, willing, and able to eat my kids'
> leftovers, but only if I'm hungry.

Mr. Friedes, although he is supporting a real life situation, instead of
complying with the "waste not, want not" Foodology for Phools lol still
retains the "Hunger Is Harmful" mindset.

> I don't eat more than what I need, and I don't need more than half a
> banana in the morning.

But...but...isn't breakfast the most important meal of the day!!

Mr. Friedes website - http://www.kbnj.com

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 1:01:16 AM9/17/11
to
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:06:41 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

>> Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
>> - oversconsumption.

>> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier

> I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that when
> I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at least at
> first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry. Being more
> conscious of what I ate was almost more important than how many calories
> I took in.

Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a temporary
approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal counting is the
reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of salmon...or 5? Was that
really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7? How much fat did you eat v.s
meat? How much was digested and useful?

> The problem with an eating system like yours is that I think that I
> would find it too tempting to game the system.

It's your game, neither the 2PD OMER nor any eating system can be
blamed, it's your game.

> For example, I am pretty
> sure that eating two pounds of bacon per day would not be good for me,
> but I am also pretty sure that I would at least be tempted to try it.

Go ahead.

> I know that when I experimented with the Atkins diet I had a *bacon*
> day. Eating piles of bacon made me happy (for a bit), but I don't
> think that it got me closer to my goal.

Atkins was, is and always will be a complete failure. No worries, he's
in excellent company with every other calorie or carb counting diet that
has ever existed.

> Counting calories is not significantly more difficult than simply
> weighing your food, and it helps steer me towards foods like vegetables
> that are low in calories.

Overconsumption is the issue not what is consumed. Just ask any Atkins
ex-dieter.

Whosoever

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 2:03:46 AM9/17/11
to
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

> The absolutely only healthy way to stop the overeating is to
> the heart by holding to the
> right daily amount (32 oz) of food.

Untrue.

The diet invented by Andrew B. Chung, is only one of many available
dietary options.

Take into consideration though; that there isn't a single bit of
obtainable empirical clinical evidence, to support Andrew B. Chung's
opinion of the diet he invented.

Nor is there a single licensed nutritionist or dietitian who's on on
record having supported Andrew B. Chung's opinion of the diet he
invented.

Nor is there a single theologian, Bible scholar or historian who will
back up Andrew B. Chung's opinion of what an "omer" weighs, or any of
Andrew B. Chung's other opinions as to how the Bible supposedly
applies
directly to the diet he invented.

All you really have to go by regarding the diet invented by Andrew B
Chung,
is nothing more than Andrew B. Chung's opinions and personal claims.

Andrew B. Chung will claim that the diet he invented was the result of
a vision form God, however he didn't start making this claim until
about five years after its 1998 inception.
He will also claim it's not a diet, even though he called it a diet
until about five years after its 1998 inception.

> happened in 1997 during the viewing of an IMAX
> Mt.Everest documentary that started playing at the Tennessee Aquarium
> **before** 1996:

Untrue.

The release date for the IMAX documentary "Everest" was 6 March 1998.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0120661/releaseinfo

Andrew B. Chung wrote:
> 2 pound diet
> [I] Dr. Chung invented this approach

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.diet.low-carb/msg/fd713904855bfa2c?hl=en


"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

> That is a distortion of what is actually written [in the Bible] in a
> vain attempt to change it.

Which of course is exactly what Chung has done with every single one
of the numerous Bible verses he's misapplied to his 2pid diet.
Using Chung's method of operation against him, really brings out his
hypocritical indignation :-)

On his rusted blog, Chung says that he started receiving a
tremendously negative outcome when he began misapplying Sacred
Biblical Scripture in an exploitative promotion of the 2pid diet he
invented. This negativity, this continual downward spiral he's been
experiencing is the harvest of the seeds of duplicity he's sown.

> [I'm] Simply smarter as evident by the MD/PhD

It's a shame those smarts didn't withstand the test of time.

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 2:38:30 AM9/17/11
to
On 9/16/2011 9:48 PM, MU wrote:

>
> But...but...isn't breakfast the most important meal of the day!!

Well, there are lots of widely published studies saying so.

While on the other hand, there is nothing whatsoever to corroborate the
claims made by the sole inventor of the 2PD-Omer, Andrew B. Chung.

Anything, anything at all?

MayoClinic.com?

WebMd.com?

Smartbalance.com?

Diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/eating?

Diabetes.org › Food and Fitness › Food › Planning Meals?

Not even something as basic as;

Wikipedia.com?

Answers.yahoo.com?

About.com?

Anything, anything at all?

Why not?

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 2:50:10 AM9/17/11
to
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:38:30 -0700, Ace trolling as Mr. Millican wrote:

> On 9/16/2011 9:48 PM, MU wrote:
>
>>
>> But...but...isn't breakfast the most important meal of the day!!
>
> Well, there are lots of widely published studies saying so.

Good to know that! And your qualifications for understanding these
studies is...lol...

Bzzzzzzzt. Right answer. *NONE*

However, please cite these "lots of studies", Acer! <grin>

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 3:14:45 AM9/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 00:10:06 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

> On Fri, Sep 16 2011, MU wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:06:41 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:
>>
>>>> Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
>>>> - oversconsumption.
>>
>>>> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
>>
>>> I would like to think that this would probably work. I found that when
>>> I started keeping track of what I ate that I lost weight (at least at
>>> first) despite the fact that I never really felt hungry. Being more
>>> conscious of what I ate was almost more important than how many calories
>>> I took in.
>>
>> Cal counting doesn't work when work is defined as more than a
>> temporary approach to eating. The most significant issue with cal
>> counting is the reliability of your own data. Was that 6oz of
>> salmon...or 5? Was that really a 8oz sirloin...or was it 9? Or 7? How
>> much fat did you eat v.s meat? How much was digested and useful?
>
> Granted, unless you are far more persnickety than I am about your
> measurements there is going to be a certain amount of fuzz in your data.

At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
about it.

One pound of body weight is roughly equivalent to 3500 calories, so
eating an extra 2,100 calories per week will cause you to gain half to
three quarters pounds a week. A year? You're obese.

This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.

Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
argument.

> Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
> volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
> propose is not likely to be that great.

The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
to worry about.

> My guess is that your method is actually a useful shorthand. Weighing
> foods is quite a bit easier than weighing food and then guessing how
> many calories per gram, and I would not be surprised to find out it
> works just as well.

>>> The problem with an eating system like yours is that I think that I
>>> would find it too tempting to game the system.
>>
>> It's your game, neither the 2PD OMER nor any eating system can be
>> blamed, it's your game.
>
> True. I would only be cheating myself.
>
>>> For example, I am pretty sure that eating two pounds of bacon per day
>>> would not be good for me, but I am also pretty sure that I would at
>>> least be tempted to try it.
>>
>> Go ahead.
>
> Heck, it might even work. It did not kill me when I experimented with
> Atkins.
>
>>> I know that when I experimented with the Atkins diet I had a *bacon*
>>> day. Eating piles of bacon made me happy (for a bit), but I don't
>>> think that it got me closer to my goal.
>>
>> Atkins was, is and always will be a complete failure. No worries, he's
>> in excellent company with every other calorie or carb counting diet
>> that has ever existed.
>
> Atkins made me feel like crap. I like a few carbs in my meals. Bacon
> is still delicious though.

Atkins ranks among the most villanous men in the history of faux
dieting. Even his death was manipulated.

Thanks to his death certificate, we know Atkins was 6', 258 pounds at
the time of his death, obese by any definition. Yet according to a copy
of his medical records, from the Atkins widow, Atkins weighed 195 pounds
upon admission to the hospital 8 April 2003 following his fall. He died
on 17 April 2003.

Even in death, he was a deceitful, pitiful evil man.

>>> Counting calories is not significantly more difficult than simply
>>> weighing your food, and it helps steer me towards foods like
>>> vegetables that are low in calories.
>>
>> Overconsumption is the issue not what is consumed. Just ask any Atkins
>> ex-dieter.
>
> I agree. Everything in moderation.
>
> Jason

Moderation to what? The immoderate, overconsuming gluttony now taken as
the norm?

Thomas J. Giarmo

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 4:10:11 AM9/17/11
to
On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 19:40:05 -0400, MU wrote:

> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 15:23:09 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:
>
>> I don't think I have ever eaten *half* a banana. Once I open one I
>> assume I have to eat the whole thing.
>
> Here we have the ingrained behavior of the modern (post Great
> Depression)consumer. It is the result of several/all of the
> conditionings a few of which are "clean your plate; no waste" taught by
> guilt conditioned parents, the marketing of the USDA, private marketing
> of the agricultural megacorporateplex, the fast food industry and
> others.
>
> Mr. Earl is amply demonstrating his conditioning as clearly as Alex de
> Large was conditioned to hate violence. Both are artificial, neither
> inherent from birth, both taught consciously and subconsciously.

I agree with your assessments.

> Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
> - oversconsumption.
>
> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier

Am I missing something? Don't overeat, that's the message? This is news?

> Note that Mr. Earl did not say " I don't think I have ever eaten *half*
> a banana. Once I open one I assume I have to /consume all the calories
> in it/".

Who does?
--
Tom Giarmo aka Ryan White aka poonytang |
Please feel free to email me tgi...@sandata.com or drop me a line!
Corporate Headquarters Port Washington, New York
26 Harbor Park Drive Port Washington, NY 11050 | T: 800–544–7263
F: 516-484–6084

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 4:17:34 AM9/17/11
to
Thomas J. Giarmo wrote:
> MU wrote:
> > Jason Earl wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think I have ever eaten *half* a banana. Once I open one I
> >> assume I have to eat the whole thing.
> >
> > Here we have the ingrained behavior of the modern (post Great
> > Depression)consumer. It is the result of several/all of the
> > conditionings a few of which are "clean your plate; no waste" taught by
> > guilt conditioned parents, the marketing of the USDA, private marketing
> > of the agricultural megacorporateplex, the fast food industry and
> > others.
> >
> > Mr. Earl is amply demonstrating his conditioning as clearly as Alex de
> > Large was conditioned to hate violence. Both are artificial, neither
> > inherent from birth, both taught consciously and subconsciously.
>
> I agree with your assessments.
>
> > Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
> > - oversconsumption.
> >
> > http://WDJW.net/BeSmart
>
> Am I missing something?

No.

> Don't overeat, that's the message?

No. That's the background.

> This is news?

How to stop overeating will always be news for those who are
overeating because of their terrible attitude towards hunger combined
with their ignorance about the right daily amount (32 oz) of food.

Be hungrier, which really is wonderfully healthier especially for
diabetics and other heart disease patients:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?

We do this by weighing our meals per the http://WDJW.net/2PD-OMER
Approach to get our...

http://WDJW.net/Status

and then...

http://WDJW.net/Update

so that there will be...

http://WDJW.net/NoVAT

Being hungry really is wonderful as proven by five lines of evidence:

Mathematical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113247&l=9583a55b45&id=1467768946

Historical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113078&l=0071d60632&id=1467768946

Medical:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31107542&l=a51ee83a50&id=1467768946

Psychological:
http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31229810&l=0b3a2ad60b&id=1467768946

Factual:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/21f7a54a0f52f174?

So that we really should http://WDJW.net/BeHungry and say we are
"wonderfully hungry" whenever we are greeted:

http://WDJW.net/WonderfullyHungry

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=31113612&l=cbe72c46ca&id=1467768946

There is pure joy in being used by GOD to convince others:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?

"A 2005 visit to an Atlanta cardiologist by the name of Andrew Chung
put me on some serious reality

I wasnt just chubby or husky, I am what they often call morbidly
obese. He explained that morbid obesity simply means that if something
happened to me that could be attiributed to weight and I were to end
up in the not breathing state

ok some call it DEAD

that a doctor could simply dismiss it as natural causes related to
weight more or less.

Ive been told I was a chunky fella a couple times, maybe even fat...
but not quite that harshly. Definitely made me think about a few
things, as much as I dislike scare tactics when it comes to health.

Well in the midst of the shock treatment, he also had me come to a
heart wellness seminar that he does on some Saturdays in Mableton.

Nice little get together, he has folks from the community come in and
discuss Tai Chi, exercises, testimonials, all kinds of good stuff.

Then he shows the movie SUPERSIZE ME to set up the pitch for his 2PD
Omer approach that he has his patients use to lose weight.

In a nutshell, in his view, HOW MUCH you eat is more of the issue than
WHAT you eat and portion is more important than any fat content or
calories.

I agree with this. This is why I have always been more successful on
more liquid diets (cabbage soup, slimfast, herbalife (tho dangerous))
than anything else. I wasnt eating the portions I was before that..."

Source:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e82824a99ba4f187?

This has all been about the truth:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/fc8ddf9938aa594b?

May GOD continue to save the souls of those who are around this
physician ( http://WDJW.net/HeartDoc ) by changing stoney hearts to
fleshy hearts and giving their minds a new spirit (Ez11:19-20&36:26)
so that they would be born again of water and Spirit (Jn3:3&3:5),
http://WDJW.net/Forgiven by Him so that they would come to trust the
truth, Who is Jesus Christ of Nazareth:

http://T3WiJ.com

Amen.

Love in the Truth,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9ad0c19df5ffc2f7?

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 4:55:59 AM9/17/11
to
On 9/16/2011 11:50 PM, MU wrote:
> On Fri, 16 Sep 2011 23:38:30 -0700, Ace trolling as Mr. Millican wrote:
>
> > On 9/16/2011 9:48 PM, MU wrote:
>
> >> But...but...isn't breakfast the most important meal of the day!!
>
> > Well, there are lots of widely published studies saying so.
>
> Good to know that! And your qualifications for understanding these
> studies is...lol...

Non Sequitur. Someone's qualifications for understanding them is moot
concerning their existence.

> Bzzzzzzzt. Right answer. *NONE*

There can be no right or wrong answer to a non sequitur question. Which
was poorly contrived to escape the issue.

That being; no study exists outside of Chung's writings about 2PD-Omer
exist. *NONE*

> However, please cite these "lots of studies",

Oh gee, does that mean I have to cut and paste Google search results for
"Breakfast most important meal studies"? Really?

> Acer! <grin>

Bzzzzzzzt. Wrong user <smirk>.

Meanwhile what study or published article exists about the 2PD-Omer?

Ding-ding-ding. Right answer. *NONE*

> "MU" wrote" *PLONK* (14 times)

You're not very good at sticking with your plonks, Mu-Chung.

*ROFL*

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 4:59:07 AM9/17/11
to
On 9/17/2011 12:14 AM, MU wrote:

> At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
> mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
> about it.

Good to know that! And your qualifications for understanding these
studies is...lol...

Bzzzzzzzt. Right answer. *NONE*

Unless that is, you can prove you qualifications.

Well?

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 5:25:06 AM9/17/11
to
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:

> The absolutely only healthy way to stop the overeating is to
> the heart by holding to the
> right daily amount (32 oz) of food.

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 7:28:35 AM9/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:59:07 -0700, Ace trolling as Mr. Millican wrote:

>> At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
>> mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
>> about it.
>
> Good to know that!

You bit. Like I was ever worried that you wouldn't. lol

> And your qualifications for understanding these studies is...

...the large number of developed relationships I have made over 20 years
with the scientfic and medical community who are capable of evaluating
clinical test quality and translating qualified citations into ideas and
concepts I can understand.

Acer, you forget, I was and still am involved in the latest in terms of
kinesiological, biomechanical and physiological research as it relates
to athletes and warfighters. This includes military medical (BUMED, etc)

Of course you knew that but since when have you ever been anything but a
lying, disingenous troll, huh?

> Well?

You can run along now.

*rofl*

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 7:32:50 AM9/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 04:10:11 -0400, Thomas J. Giarmo wrote:

>> Mr. Earl is amply demonstrating his conditioning as clearly as Alex de
>> Large was conditioned to hate violence. Both are artificial, neither
>> inherent from birth, both taught consciously and subconsciously.
>
> I agree with your assessments.
>
>> Which is why the 2PD OMER approach to eating attacks the central problem
>> - oversconsumption.
>>
>> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
>
> Am I missing something? Don't overeat, that's the message? This is news?
>

You are missing nothing, the 2PD OMER is as simple as it appears. Is it
news? Truth is simple but often overlooked especially when it confronts
a supersized, highly conditioned, brainwashed populace.



>> Note that Mr. Earl did not say " I don't think I have ever eaten *half*
>> a banana. Once I open one I assume I have to /consume all the calories
>> in it/".
>
> Who does?

Anyone who attempts a calorie or carb or protein diet might.

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 8:09:03 AM9/17/11
to
On 9/17/2011 4:28 AM, MU wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 01:59:07 -0700, Ace trolling as Mr. Millican wrote:
>
>>> At equilibrium caloric intake (no weight gain or loss) let's assume for
>>> mathematical purposes is 3,000 cals, an error of 10%. Nothing fuzzy
>>> about it.
>>
>> Good to know that!
>
> You bit. Like I was ever worried that you wouldn't. lol
>
>> And your qualifications for understanding these studies is...
>
> ...the large number of developed relationships I


I? LOL. You are an unidentifiable anonymous sockpuppet.
Always have been, always will be. No identity whatsoever.

> have made over 20 years
> with the scientfic and medical community who are capable of evaluating
> clinical test quality and translating qualified citations into ideas and
> concepts I can understand.

That is your anecdotal hearsay, not proof.

> Acer, you forget, I was and still am involved in the latest in terms of
> kinesiological, biomechanical and physiological research as it relates
> to athletes and warfighters. This includes military medical (BUMED, etc)

According to no source other than your own contrivances. You offer
nothing except for insubstantial claims. Nothing. And that's what I
remember.

> Of course you knew that but since when have you ever been anything but a
> lying, disingenous troll, huh?

Now you're projecting. You are purely disingenuous. Purely troll. By
your own admission; you post for the sole purpose "to piss off". But all
you've ever really achieved is endless reticule, from a great many
people, over a long period of time. Mu-Chung stalled out a long time
ago. I'm the only one left now willing to play with you these days. All
those years and 2pid-0mer has gone nowhere. How sad.

>> Well?
>
> You can run along now.
>
> *rofl*

I'll gladly leave, just as soon as soon as you can provide a shred of
proof to back up what you've written about yourself, or a shred of proof
of the claims made by MU/Chung regarding the 2pid diet.

Proof, science man. Empirical evidence. Not anecdotal vapor.

Anything? Anything at all.

Well?...


Ace

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 9:09:03 AM9/17/11
to
On Sep 17, 4:28 am, MU <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Of course you knew that but since when have you ever been anything but a
> lying, disingenous troll, huh?

"The use of a pseudonym while accusing another of lying is
automatically itself lying.

Therefore, lying sockpuppets like yourself can only succeed at proving
yourselves to be liars with anything you post"

Tee hee.

A*

Ace

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 9:10:57 AM9/17/11
to
On Sep 17, 4:28 am, MU <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> Acer,

Why are you dragging me into this?

> you forget, I was and still am involved in the latest in terms of
> kinesiological, biomechanical and physiological research as it relates
> to athletes and warfighters. This includes military medical (BUMED, etc)

Sorry to pee on MU's Cheerios, but I know nothing of the sort. I know
that others have said MU has made claims of what someone referred to
as being a "secret spy agent", which apparently no one has ever
believed. Quite the alter ego, you've come up with for yourself there,
Andrew.

> Of course you knew that

No, I didn't. How egotistical of MU to assume that I've hung on to
every word MU has made up about "MU", or paid any attention
whatsoever. I do know MU has come up with a good (but hardly credible)
excuse for keeping "MU" anonymous. How convenient.

> but since when have you ever been anything but a
> lying, disingenous troll, huh?

That is correct, I'm not a genuine troll i.e. not a troll :-)

Dr. Brian Gene Kelley, PhD - Behavioral Science.
Henderson, NV

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 10:48:37 AM9/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 06:10:57 -0700 (PDT), Ace wrote:

> On Sep 17, 4:28 am, MU <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Acer,
>
> Why are you dragging me into this?

Why do you always appear exactly after I expose one of your thousands of
sock puppets, Acer?

Thomas J. Giarmo

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 10:52:33 AM9/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 07:32:50 -0400, MU wrote:

>>> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
>>
>> Am I missing something? Don't overeat, that's the message? This is news?
>>
> You are missing nothing, the 2PD OMER is as simple as it appears. Is it
> news? Truth is simple but often overlooked especially when it confronts
> a supersized, highly conditioned, brainwashed populace.

There are people who have trouble understanding the concept of eating
too much makes you fat? Or are there people who are in a state of
continual denial of this thermodynamic fact?

Two pounds is the thermodynamic equilibrium?

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 12:22:20 PM9/17/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 10:52:33 -0400, Thomas J. Giarmo wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 07:32:50 -0400, MU wrote:
>
>>>> http://heartmdphd.com/BeHealthier
>>>
>>> Am I missing something? Don't overeat, that's the message? This is news?
>>>
>> You are missing nothing, the 2PD OMER is as simple as it appears. Is it
>> news? Truth is simple but often overlooked especially when it confronts
>> a supersized, highly conditioned, brainwashed populace.
>
> There are people who have trouble understanding the concept of eating
> too much makes you fat? Or are there people who are in a state of
> continual denial of this thermodynamic fact?

More the latter I would assert. Consider the amount of press that fast
food gets today (bad), mirrored by ads such as Welch's grape "family
owned farms" (good) and hundreds of other calorie-based, ingredient
based and other food related media blitzes.

It would be incredibly difficult not to have gained the simplest of
educations that at some point overconsumption results in obesity.

> Two pounds is the thermodynamic equilibrium?

It is the average amount of food of which a normally healthy person
gains no weight and will lose to a proper body weight. You will
eventually stabilize at your proper weight and with minor fluctuations,
remain there.

The 2lb/day is important not to exceed with any regularity if at all.
Your body, particularly your stomach size, will become comfortable at
that amount and become uncomfortable eating larger quantities.

Jason Earl

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 12:37:56 PM9/17/11
to
First of all, you are assuming that the person counting their calories
is always 10% over. That's not particularly likely. What's more, you
are also assuming that the person in question doesn't have access to a
bathroom scale. That's even less likely.

The whole point of tracking calories is to determine how many calories
you actually need. If you find yourself gaining weight eating 3000
calories per day (and you almost certainly will) then you just need to
reduce your caloric intake.

> This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
> bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.

Actually, it is probably even more tricky than that. Not only do you
have to measure the true caloric content of the food, but you
theoretically have to find a way to measure how many of those calories
are actually available to your body.

From a practical perspective, however, you only need so much precision.

> Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
> argument.

So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it is
too imprecise to work.

>> Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
>> volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
>> propose is not likely to be that great.
>
> The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
> to worry about.

So let me get this straight. You disapprove of counting calories
because it is imprecise, and instead you propose a method that is even
less precise?

For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have 6
one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
peanuts a day and still lose weight.

Of course, that's over 5000 calories in a single day. Well over the
generous 10% margin for error that you believe I would get counting
calories. What's worse, tomorrow I think that I am going to be hungry
for bacon, a food that has an even greater caloric density.

Now, don't get me wrong. I think that your system is probably a very
useful shorthand. Weighing your food is certainly easier than weighing
your food and then calculating the calories, and I have done a bit of
spot checking from my own food log, and the calorie densities for most
foods work out about right. So while your method is less precise than
counting calories, I don't have any problem believing that it is precise
enough to work.

If I already didn't have a database that had the calories per gram of
all of the foods that I eat regularly I would probably be tempted to
give your method a try. I certainly will mention it to people that are
looking for an easy way to start losing weight that don't want to go
through the added hassle of actually estimating caloric intake.

Jason

Thomas J. Giarmo

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 12:52:13 PM9/17/11
to
How did this get crossposted into alt.movies.kubrick?

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 1:07:20 PM9/17/11
to
No, I am pointing out that a deviation from a true caloric count is
inevitable. For all the reasons I have set forth several times in this
thread.

I used 10% as a guess, who knows other than the chances that a person is
"right on" the true caloric count of their food intake is virtually nil.

So, want to use 5%? fine? Why not 15%? Fine.

> What's more, you are also assuming that the person in question doesn't
> have access to a bathroom scale. That's even less likely.

I made no assumption nor did I make any statement anything like that.

> The whole point of tracking calories is to determine how many calories
> you actually need.

It's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.

> If you find yourself gaining weight eating 3000
> calories per day (and you almost certainly will) then you just need to
> reduce your caloric intake.

It's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.

>> This assumes you, MU or anyone else other than a lab technician, has a
>> bomb calorimeter and would use it to establish *true* caloric content.
>
> Actually, it is probably even more tricky than that. Not only do you
> have to measure the true caloric content of the food, but you
> theoretically have to find a way to measure how many of those calories
> are actually available to your body.

Correct. To wit, it's pointless due to its inherent inaccuracy.

> From a practical perspective, however, you only need so much precision.

My 10% example proves that statement to wholly incorrect.

>> Point being; cal counting doesn't work on so many levels it's a Mute
>> argument.
>
> So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it is
> too imprecise to work.

Not only too imprecise, it doesn't deal with the quantity of food that
your stomach will accept comfortably. This conformableness is a key
point that determines the 2PD OMER as a "doable" eating approach.

>>> Still, I tend to weigh most of the things that I eat (instead of using
>>> volume measurements). So the difference between what I do and what you
>>> propose is not likely to be that great.
>>
>> The difference is that I never consider caloric content at all. No fuzz
>> to worry about.
>
> So let me get this straight. You disapprove of counting calories
> because it is imprecise, and instead you propose a method that is even
> less precise?

Take a scale, weigh your food, stop at 2pounds, exactly what is
imprecise about that? It is bery precise.

> For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have 6
> one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
> According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
> peanuts a day and still lose weight.

You won't do that, you cannot do that but, please, go ahead and knock
yourself out trying.

> Of course, that's over 5000 calories in a single day. Well over the
> generous 10% margin for error that you believe I would get counting
> calories. What's worse, tomorrow I think that I am going to be hungry
> for bacon, a food that has an even greater caloric density.

Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.

> Now, don't get me wrong. I think that your system is probably a very
> useful shorthand. Weighing your food is certainly easier than weighing
> your food and then calculating the calories, and I have done a bit of
> spot checking from my own food log, and the calorie densities for most
> foods work out about right.

Conjecture, imprecise conjecture.

> So while your method is less precise than
> counting calories, I don't have any problem believing that it is precise
> enough to work.
>
> If I already didn't have a database that had the calories per gram of
> all of the foods that I eat regularly I would probably be tempted to
> give your method a try. I certainly will mention it to people that are
> looking for an easy way to start losing weight that don't want to go
> through the added hassle of actually estimating caloric intake.
>
> Jason

Do them and yourself a favor. Just because you have taken a fallacious
path is no excuse for getting on the right one. There isn't a calorie
counting approach known to man that doesn't have an extremely high
failure rate over time.

The 2PD OMER stands the test.

Truth is simple. Truth, or not, is your choice.

MU

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 1:17:36 PM9/17/11
to

I made an analogy using Alex DeLarge from Clockwork Orange as a
conditioned individual as most people, certainly in the US, are
conditioned to overeat, waste not, etc. Alex' conditioning was both
artificial and environmental. So it is with overeating.

Let me make another analogy. Gluttony is a sin, a malady that only gets
worse the more often it is practiced. Could we not say the same thing
about Alex and violence - and Alex and nonviolence after his
MKUltra-like experiences?

Same is true of Jack Torrance, pedophilia and alcoholism. Kubrick often
highlights human misery and its abuse with the heightening of that
abusive action. Conditioning is just that, it increases ones abilities
and appetites whether it be a 25K, supersizing your MacMeal or romp in
the sack with a 9 year old.

Existential Angst

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 2:07:53 PM9/17/11
to
"MU" <efacs...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9dk2e8...@mid.individual.net...
Absolute idiocy.
Jason hit the nail on the head.

2# of meat? 2# of lettuce? 2# of water?
What a fukn joke....

This MU asshole actually does make some good points, but like all assholes
on autopilot with a defective chip, he winds up crashing into the side of a
mountain.

Counting calories, if that is the crux of the diet process, likely is
destined to fail.
BUT, it is a very informative, educational process as well, and can only
help in the long run.
MU is, mraculously, correct, tho, that you don't need to count calories at
all, but Jason's point about "equilibrium" food intake is important also.

Overall, the diet process is subtle-er than most realize. The highly touted
craze of "volume eating", altho logical/compelling on its face, has its own
inherent flaws, which the psychotic MU alludes to.

Our very culture excludes rational eating behavior.
Get used to it.

I wonder how this MU dresses himself in the morning.
I wonder if he talks to people the same way he addresses people here. I'd
love to slap the shit out of this little prick.
--
EA

Ace

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 11:49:06 PM9/17/11
to
MU, has always been known as Chung's sockpuppet. MU who according to
dozens, has undergone multiple incarnations "along with the FAQ, the
Mu incarnations" "MU to be the current incarnation of the Roose
troll"..........
On and on about MU being a Chung sockpuppet. On and on about MU
morphs.
MU offering nothing of substance. MU only offers vapor and evasion.

Silly MU is in no position to presume MU is in any kind of position to
ask such questions of others.

A*

Ace

unread,
Sep 17, 2011, 11:55:04 PM9/17/11
to
On Sep 17, 11:07 am, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
> "MU" <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> > Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.
>
> Absolute idiocy.
> Jason hit the nail on the head.
>
> 2# of meat?  2# of lettuce?   2# of water?
> What a fukn joke....
>
> This MU asshole

Yep, that's it and MU the Chung sockpuppet in a nutshell. Always has
been going back years and always will be.

Chung came up with a stupid Idea 15 years ago, which he's become
obsessed with beyond all reason. It has completely ruined him.

But like that OCD little ant trying to push down the rubber tree
plant..........

A*

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 12:38:43 AM9/18/11
to
Looks more like Acer appeared after you wrote "Acer". "Thousands of
sockpuppets", what a sad display of obsessive paranoia.

According to MU<efacsimi...@gmail.com>'s profile, you have written "Ace"
295 times in less than a year.

Now, let's get back to what you're attempting to sidetrack;

Provide a shred of proof to back up what you've written about yourself,
or a shred of proof of the claims made by MU/Chung regarding the 2pid diet.

Proof, science man. Empirical evidence. Not anecdotal vapor. Not
sidetracking and evasion.

Give me one empirical shred, and I'll go away.

Tiger Lily

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 3:55:18 AM9/18/11
to
interesting, not cross posts to religious groups needed

check Mu, hisoritaclly, he posts in the same time 'frame' that andi does

unless andi is up unti 5am and need to get some sleep

bye!

me!


Whosoever

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 4:01:15 AM9/18/11
to
As was recently chronicled:

Chung:

3:33 am EST
3:35 am EST
3:38 am EST
3:41 am EST
3:44 am EST
3:57 am EST
4:01 am EST
4:11 am EST
4:17 am EST
4:22 am EST
4:29 am EST
7:08 am EST

MU:

3:14 am EST
3:40 am EST

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/db890d0554262415?hl=en

MU has always posted on Andy's heels.

Thomas J. Giarmo

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 7:29:16 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:17:36 -0400, MU wrote:

> I made an analogy using Alex DeLarge from Clockwork Orange as a
> conditioned individual as most people, certainly in the US, are
> conditioned to overeat, waste not, etc. Alex' conditioning was both
> artificial and environmental. So it is with overeating.

Few understand this indoctrination, more on this later.

> Let me make another analogy. Gluttony is a sin, a malady that only gets
> worse the more often it is practiced. Could we not say the same thing
> about Alex and violence - and Alex and nonviolence after his
> MKUltra-like experiences?

You wanna talk false flag and USGV ops? No you don't. Not with me.

> Same is true of Jack Torrance, pedophilia and alcoholism. Kubrick often
> highlights human misery and its abuse with the heightening of that
> abusive action. Conditioning is just that, it increases ones abilities
> and appetites whether it be a 25K, supersizing your MacMeal or romp in
> the sack with a 9 year old.

Kubrick's symbolic encoding operated on a deliberate level of complexity
that is almost unheard of, even in the history of the arts, and is
comparative to the skills of an advanced mathematician. Yer preachin' to
the priest the choir is upstairs.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 7:48:14 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:32 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 17 2011, MU wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> First of all, you are assuming that the person counting their
>>> calories is always 10% over. That's not particularly likely.
>>
>> No, I am pointing out that a deviation from a true caloric count is
>> inevitable. For all the reasons I have set forth several times in this
>> thread.
>
> Yes, and I would bet that there are times when you have to *guess* how
> much steak you ate at a restaurant.

If you practice the 2PD OMER, you weigh, you don't guess.

> With practice, however, your guesses probably get pretty good. And
> even when they are bad, they are *way* better than just eating as
> much as you want.

Yes, of course.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 7:52:08 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:55 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

> Yes, and I would bet that there are times when you have to *guess* how
> much steak you ate at a restaurant. With practice, however, your
> guesses probably get pretty good. And even when they are bad, they are
> *way* better than just eating as much as you want.
>
> My point is that you don't have to have a "true" caloric count for your
> measurements to be useful.

See below.

> Heck, that is why I have no problems believing that your method works.
> As I stated before your method is inherently less precise than mine.
> Unless, of course, you think that there is something magical about
> two pounds of food.

Magickal? No, does it work for every single person that I have ever
seen, heard or read that has adhered to a 2lb/day limitation. Yes.

It's up to you if you want to define that as majickal...or not.

> What eating two pounds of food per day really does is force the person
> to be more conscious of what they put in their mouth. When push
> comes to shove you are restricting calories even though you are
> measuring weight.

Until you drop "calories" from your mindset, you're doomed.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 7:55:44 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:55 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

>>> What's more, you are also assuming that the person in question doesn't
>>> have access to a bathroom scale. That's even less likely.
>>
>> I made no assumption nor did I make any statement anything like that.
>
> Sure you did. For your criticism of calorie counting to work you have
> to assume that the calorie counter would fail to measure their weight
> often enough realize that they were eating too many calories. Unlike
> your fixed, one-size-fits-all 2 pounds of food per day plan, calorie
> counting is very flexible. If you find that you are still gaining
> weight with the amount of calories that you are eating you can *gasp*
> eat less. If you find that you are losing weight too slowly (or even
> too rapidly) you can modify your calorie intake appropriately.

Bathroom scales are nice but unnecessary and potentially delusional. The
most important fat to lose can be seen wit a mirror. It's the VAT that
hangs about your belly.

I only need either a mirror or finger calipers to determine if my VAT
content is out of line.

Truth, like the 2PD OMER is simple. Complexity (calorie counting) is for
fools.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 7:59:21 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:55 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

>>> So your arguments against counting calories is that you feel that it
>>> is too imprecise to work.
>>
>> Not only too imprecise, it doesn't deal with the quantity of food that
>> your stomach will accept comfortably. This conformableness is a key
>> point that determines the 2PD OMER as a "doable" eating approach.
>
> My guess is that both two pounds of broccoli and two pounds of bacon
> would upset my stomach (for different reasons).

Guess what, then you won't eat it over and over again then will you?
Which is why I encouraged you to try eating 2lbs/day of /anything/
repeatedly.

> Besides, are you sure that two pounds fits *my* stomach comfortably, or
> are you just generalizing.

Unless you are an extraterrestrial, I am positive.

> Don't get me wrong. Like I have said before, I have no problems
> believing your approach works. My guess is that two pounds of food per
> day would put most people in a zone where on average they would be in
> caloric deficit.

Forget calories. Write it down 100x with chalk on a scratchy blackboard
and get back to MU when you have gotten the point.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 8:01:03 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:32 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

>> For example, right now I am hungry for peanuts, and I happen to have
>>> 6 one pound jars of Planters Dry Roasted Peanuts in my cupboard.
>>> According to your theory I should be able to eat two pounds of those
>>> peanuts a day and still lose weight.
>>
>> You won't do that, you cannot do that but, please, go ahead and knock
>> yourself out trying.
>
> I am pretty sure that I could eat two pounds of peanuts in a single 24
> hour period. Heck, I have eaten one of those jars of peanuts before and
> still been hungry for peanuts.
>
> Peanuts are delicious.

Go for it.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 8:13:45 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:32 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

>> Eat what you want up to 2 pounds per day. Truth is simple.
>
> I am afraid in this case that your truth is a little too simple.

Now we get to the crux of your problem. Simple somehow equates to
"simple-minded"; complex equates to intellectual.

lol

You haven't a clue to the complexities in life with a simple-minded, 2
dimensional view of reality. As you get older, you might...or might
not... see that the simple is the basis of existence, that you will
never get the simplest grasp of the complexities that engulf you. Heck,
you can't see them, have never experienced them, much less understand
them.

So with the need to fulfill your intellectual approach to consumption,
you count calories since you are certain that you are intellectual
enough to do so despite the fact that cal counting is only a scientific
enterprise to have any basis in fact. Bought that bomb calorimeter yet?
The instructions should satisfy your need for complex intellectual
pursuit.

But, hey, you're /simply/ one of billions of conditioned minds that have
been deluded into thinking that calories can be counted, that your mind
will prevail over the complex. My gosh, haven't you been properly
educated yet? lol

Shame. Not like it isn't a common, constantly recurring theme. Age
should solve that.

Then again, maybe not.

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 8:17:39 AM9/18/11
to
On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:32 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

>> Truth is simple. Truth, or not, is your choice.
>
> Let's just say that I generally require a bit more evidence before I am
> willing to accept something as "truth."

What would be better evidence that you trying the 2PD OMER instead of
whining about not having any evidence?

> I will admit that your idea
> seems interesting, but I am quite happy with what I am doing now.

Then quit whining. When you are ready for evidence, instead of
"masterful" discussion, you'll try it.

Until then, it's whining.

> It has worked for me well enough that I am willing to put up with the
> hassle of recording everything I eat.

You won't keep up, no one does. Like the highwayman who /simply/ loves
the smooth tarmac, you conveniently ignore the =fact that the road you
have chosen comes to an abrupt deadend.

> The only real reason that I can see for switching to just weighing my
> food is that it would allow me to actually test to see if I could eat 2
> pounds of peanuts in 24 hours.
>
> I think I could.

<sigh>

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 8:27:40 AM9/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:29:16 -0400, Thomas J. Giarmo wrote:

> You wanna talk false flag and USGV ops? No you don't. Not with me.

Mr. Giarmo, anyone can discuss un/declassified intelligence operations.
I have been involved in more than I can count.

If you truly understand these and classified operations, then you will
know that the discussion of classified intelligence is unlawful, illegal
and may find you, if you do not mind my quoting Kubrick/G. Sgt. Hartman
"in a world of shit".

MU

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 8:39:10 AM9/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:29:16 -0400, Thomas J. Giarmo wrote:

> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 13:17:36 -0400, MU wrote:
>
>> I made an analogy using Alex DeLarge from Clockwork Orange as a
>> conditioned individual as most people, certainly in the US, are
>> conditioned to overeat, waste not, etc. Alex' conditioning was both
>> artificial and environmental. So it is with overeating.

>> Let me make another analogy. Gluttony is a sin, a malady that only gets
>> worse the more often it is practiced. Could we not say the same thing
>> about Alex and violence - and Alex and nonviolence after his
>> MKUltra-like experiences?

>> Same is true of Jack Torrance, pedophilia and alcoholism. Kubrick often
>> highlights human misery and its abuse with the heightening of that
>> abusive action. Conditioning is just that, it increases ones abilities
>> and appetites whether it be a 25K, supersizing your MacMeal or romp in
>> the sack with a 9 year old.
>
> Kubrick's symbolic encoding operated on a deliberate level of complexity
> that is almost unheard of, even in the history of the arts, and is
> comparative to the skills of an advanced mathematician. Yer preachin' to
> the priest the choir is upstairs.

I am preaching to both.

As Kubrick's symbologies and message delivery is missed by the vast
majority of the movie viewing public, so it is with the exquisite art of
population mind control. They do not understand it and if they did, they
might not or could not remove themselves from it.

Conditioning the population to overconsumption is a devilish, extremely
well understood phenomena by those who deliver it ala Kubrick. Rarely is
any image or message unintentional, done by mistake alone; it's quite a
science.

Mr. Millican

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 9:01:08 AM9/18/11
to
MU is such a pathetic obvious phony. MU is nothing more than vapor. Hot
air. MU's default cop out; "that's classified".

> "in a world of shit".

Oh dear, girlyman MU is so scary, ominous and intimidating.

Take MU apart, Thomas.

Whosoever

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 9:16:33 AM9/18/11
to
On Sep 18, 4:48 am, MU <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If you practice the 2PD OMER, you weigh, you don't guess.

Of course 2IQ-0MER doesn't take into consideration that a rare steak
weighs more than a well done steak of the same cut. That the majority
of most food weight is water. That the 2 lbs of food (a wild guess by
Chung) the Everest climbers ate daily was of course 2 lbs of
dehydrated food, which would've weighed 6 lbs, if they didn't have to
lug it up 29029 feet.
That an apple weighs much more than a Twinkly.
That after 15 years, the 2IQ-0MER is still unheard of outside Usenet
and Chung's blogs and pamphlets.

Whosoever

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 9:25:47 AM9/18/11
to
On Sep 18, 4:52 am, MU <efacsimi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2011 17:58:55 -0600, Jason Earl wrote:

> >  Unless, of course, you think that there is something magical about
> > two pounds of food.
>
> Magickal?

No, "miraculous". After five years of failing to get anyone to accept
2IQ-0mer, Chung suddenly revealed that wile he cited himself as the
inventor, it was really a miraculous message from God. You know, like
Joesph Smith received. Except of course Smith's con job was a hit,
while Chung's remains a flop.

Now, all MU has to do is find a single theologian, Bible scholar or
historian to verify Chung's claims.
Or a single licensed nutritionist or dietitian to verify Chung's
claims.

Chung and MU have never provided anything other than anecdotal vapor.
Hot air.

Thomas J. Giarmo

unread,
Sep 18, 2011, 9:57:32 AM9/18/11
to
On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 08:27:40 -0400, MU wrote:

> On Sun, 18 Sep 2011 07:29:16 -0400, Thomas J. Giarmo wrote:
>
>> You wanna talk false flag and USGV ops? No you don't. Not with me.
>
> Mr. Giarmo, anyone can discuss un/declassified intelligence operations.
> I have been involved in more than I can count.

Montauk. Declassified?

> If you truly understand these and classified operations, then you will
> know that the discussion of classified intelligence is unlawful, illegal
> and may find you, if you do not mind my quoting Kubrick/G. Sgt. Hartman
> "in a world of shit".

This a threat?