Chung, the board certified quack

[Tcomeau]

Hey Chung,

Which is more fattening?

2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce Hey Chung,

Which is more fattening?

2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce

Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh 2
pounds.

Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......

I kill myself.... chuckle....

TC

[J . David]

On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) wrote:

>Hey Chung,
>
>Which is more fattening?
>
>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
>of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
>lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
>french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce Hey Chung,
>
>Which is more fattening?
>
>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
>of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
>lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
>french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
>
>Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh
>2 pounds.
>
>Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
>
>I kill myself.... chuckle....
>
>TC

Well if your attempt to kill yourself was as unsucessful as
your attempt to decide on which item in your list was more
fattening, then I guess that you are still with us. Two
pounds of pork fat would be more fattening. They are NOT
all the same.

Robin

[Dr Zen]

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> Hey Chung,
>
> Which is more fattening?
>
> 2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
> of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
> lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
> french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce

BTDT. 2lbs of shit. The door's over there.

Cheers now

Zen

[jjones]

I don't know much about the diet, but I am assuming that the
dr. is assuming that one eats 2lbs of food in recommended
proportion from the five-daily food groups. At least this
seems to make most sense to me.

[Dr. Andrew]

tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> Hey Chung,
>
> Which is more fattening?
>
> 2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
> of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
> lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
> french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce Hey Chung,
>
> Which is more fattening?
>
> 2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
> of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
> lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
> french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
>
> Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh
> 2 pounds.
>
> Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......

I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.

> I kill myself.... chuckle....

.. by overeating.

>
> TC

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at TC
(2) Report TC to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

TC's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

[Stephen Na]

On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:42:37 GMT, jjones@bone.net wrote:

>I don't know much about the diet, but I am assuming that the
>dr. is assuming that one eats 2lbs of food in recommended
>proportion from the five-daily food groups. At least this
>seems to make most sense to me.

.................

That makes the most sense to me as well. If I were going to go
on the 2PDiet, I think that's what I would try to do - eat
balanced meals within the weight constraints of the diet.

But the way I read the diet from web site, there is no
reference to food groups at all. It's two pounds of anything -
water and sugar-free drinks excepted.

smn

[Steve]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 8:42:37 -0500, jjones@bone.net wrote (in
message
<d38cc884e44f2d0afe623a842d857abe@news.meganetnews.com>):

> I don't know much about the diet, but I am assuming that the
> dr. is assuming that one eats 2lbs of food in recommended
> proportion from the five-daily food groups. At least this
> seems to make most sense to me.

"makes sense" and "Two Pound Diet" should not be used in the
same sentence. However, if you wish to, you would probably be
better off asking your doctor about the Two Foot Diet.

I developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement
for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid
having to carry a scale around.

Inspired by Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described
on his website, in 2003, my wife and I attended an IMAX
film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that
despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed
only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2
feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died
from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet
of food per day should be more than adequate for us
non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese
friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers
with instructions to measure the length of everything
substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things
exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was
that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of
food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal
body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per
day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my
proper weight in one month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken
longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some
of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also
happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for
accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to
buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's
longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two
feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting
calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you
can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and
without compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ
and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what
could be simpler?

"If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have
stood on the shoulders of midgets"

Humbly,

Steve, Humilitas Doctorus, Fellow of the American Academy
of Humility

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

[Matti Nark]

7 Feb 2004 08:38:04 -0800 in article
<dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com>
nospam3@heartmdphd.com
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

In his futile attempts to avoid killfiles, Chung has again
modified (one of his) email address(es). Number 2 after nospam
has now changed to 3. Because of these continuing changes it's
best to filter out both his posting name "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" and his domain heartmdphd.com.

--
Matti Narkia

[Ellen Wick]

in article dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD at nospam3@heartmdphd.com wrote on
7/2/04 9:38 am:

> ogical obsessions are related to the 2 pound diet approach
> (2PD) which is described completely at:
>
> http://w
Please take this somewhere else, this isn't appropriate
here. Ellen

[Dr. Andrew]

gollyg@hotmail.com (Dr Zen) wrote in message
news:<5e7da04d.0402070502.5e2a6ebc@posting.google.com>...
> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> > Hey Chung,
> >
> > Which is more fattening?
> >
> > 2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2
> > lbs of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork
> > fat 2 lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2
> > lbs of french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
>
> BTDT. 2lbs of shit. The door's over there.
>
> Cheers now
>
> Zen

Ok.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Zen ;-)
(2) Report Zen to his ISP ;-)
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

[Jeff]

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com> wrote
in message
news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> > Hey Chung,
> >
> > Which is more fattening?
(...)

> I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.

What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this makes
Andrew feel really good about himself.

> > I kill myself.... chuckle....
>
> .. by overeating.
>
> >
> > TC
>
> You poor guy.

It is not the poster who I think is poor.

I am sorry as a physician that someone who is supposedly a
physician is so unprofessonal. How Sad.

Jeff

(...)

[Dr. Andrew]

Jeff wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com> wrote
> in message
> news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> > tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> > > Hey Chung,
> > >
> > > Which is more fattening?
> (...)
>
> > I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
>
> <hiss>
>
> > > I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >
> > .. by overeating.
> >
> > >
> > > TC
> >
> > You poor guy.
>
> <hiss>
>
> Jeff

You poor guy.

I will pray for you, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Jeff
(2) Report Jeff to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

[Matti Nark]

Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
<c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com> wrote
>in message
>news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
>> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
>> > Hey Chung,
>> >
>> > Which is more fattening?
>(...)
>
>> I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
>
>What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this makes
>Andrew feel really good about himself.
>
>> > I kill myself.... chuckle....
>>
>> .. by overeating.
>>
>> >
>> > TC
>>
>> You poor guy.
>
>It is not the poster who I think is poor.
>
>I am sorry as a physician that someone who is supposedly a
>physician is so unprofessonal. How Sad.
>
I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and education, if
he really is a doctor.

--
Matti Narkia

[Dr. Andrew]

Matti Narkia wrote:

> Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
> <c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
> >wrote in message
> >news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> >> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> >news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> >> > Hey Chung,
> >> >
> >> > Which is more fattening?
> >(...)
> >
> >> I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
> >
> >What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this
> >makes Andrew feel really good about himself.
> >
> >> > I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >>
> >> .. by overeating.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > TC
> >>
> >> You poor guy.
> >
> >It is the poster who I think is poor.
> >
> >I am a sorry physician that is so unprofessonal. How Sad.
> >
> I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and education,
> if you really are
>
> a doctor.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

Correct :-)

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Matti
(2) Report Matti to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Matti's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

[Steve]

On Sat, 7 Feb 2004 16:25:06 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote (in
message <rpla201bmr13k82niuiic6ghk4t2tfelfp@4ax.com>):

> Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
> <c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
>> wrote in message
>> news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
>>> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>> news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
>>>> Hey Chung,
>>>>
>>>> Which is more fattening?
>> (...)
>>
>>> I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
>>
>> What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this
>> makes Andrew feel really good about himself.
>>
>>>> I kill myself.... chuckle....
>>>
>>> .. by overeating.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> TC
>>>
>>> You poor guy.
>>
>> It is not the poster who I think is poor.
>>
>> I am sorry as a physician that someone who is supposedly a
>> physician is so unprofessonal. How Sad.
>>
> I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and education,
> if he really is a doctor.
>

After that "pedophile" post, I think it goes beyond sad. This
is a seriously sociopathic person. I can see why Mu
identifies with him.

Where are all the sock "Christians" to condemn such an
outrage? They have demonstrated their own moral bankruptcy
with their silence.

--
Steve

[Bob]

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

> Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>
>>Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
>><c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
>><kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
>>>wrote in message
>>>news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
>>>
>>>>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>>>
>>>news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
>>>
>>>>>Hey Chung,
>>>>>
>>>>>Which is more fattening?
>>>
>>>(...)
>>>
>>>>I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
>>>
>>>What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this
>>>makes Andrew feel really good about himself.
>>>
>>>>>I kill myself.... chuckle....
>>>>
>>>>.. by overeating.
>>>>
>>>>>TC
>>>>
>>>>You poor guy.
>>>
>>>It is the poster who I think is poor.
>>>
>>>I am a sorry physician that is so unprofessonal. How Sad.

Um, perhaps it would be good to put the original line back in.
The one that Chung changed.

"I am sorry as a physician that someone who is supposedly a
physician is so unprofessional. How Sad."

>>I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and education,
>>if you really are a doctor.
>>
>>--
>>Matti Narkia
>
> Correct :-)

Correct, indeed. The fraud Chung is a sad case.

Bob

[Matti Nark]

Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:47:46 -0500 in article
<40255D02.5085776A@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:

>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
>> <c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
>> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
>> >wrote in message
>> >news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
>> >> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>> >news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
>> >> > Hey Chung,
>> >> >
>> >> > Which is more fattening?
>> >(...)
>> >
>> >> I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
>> >
>> >What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this
>> >makes Andrew feel really good about himself.
>> >
>> >> > I kill myself.... chuckle....
>> >>
>> >> .. by overeating.
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> > TC
>> >>
>> >> You poor guy.
>> >
>> >It is the poster who I think is poor.
>> >
>> >I am a sorry physician that is so unprofessonal. How Sad.
>> >
>> I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and education,
>> if you really are
>>
>> a doctor.
>>
See what a pathetic creature and fraud this Chung "doctor" is.
He has sunk to a new record low level, where he routinely
falsifies other debaters' comments, when he replies to them.
In my reply to Jeff (who apparently is a doctor) I wrote:

"I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and
education, if he really is a doctor."

As seen above, Chung has deliberately forged this by
changing "he" (meaning Chung) to "you" (so that the reader
may get an impression that I meant Jeff). I've seen a lot of
ugly things in usenet newsgroups flame wars, but I cannot
remember anyone ever deliberately falsifying other debater's
comments. What a shame.

--
Matti Narkia

[Dr. Andrew]

Bob wrote:

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
> >><c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
> >><kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
> >>>wrote in message
> >>>news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> >>>
> >>>>tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> >>>
> >>>news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> >>>
> >>>>>Hey Chung,
> >>>>>
> >>>>>Which is more fattening?
> >>>
> >>>(...)
> >>>
> >>>>I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
> >>>
> >>>What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this
> >>>makes Andrew feel really good about himself.
> >>>
> >>>>>I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >>>>
> >>>>.. by overeating.
> >>>>
> >>>>>TC
> >>>>
> >>>>You poor guy.
> >>>
> >>>It is the poster who I think is poor.
> >>>
> >>>I am a sorry physician that is so unprofessonal. How Sad.
>
> <hisssssssssssssssssss!>
>
> Bob "raging and self-confident" Pastorio

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Bob
(2) Report Bob to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Bob's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

[Jeff]

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote in
message news:40254B61.B3B2222@heartmdphd.com...
> Jeff wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
> > wrote in message
> > news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> > > tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> > news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> > > > Hey Chung,
> > > >
> > > > Which is more fattening?
> > (...)
> >
> > > I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
> >
> > <hiss>
> >

Andrew, I never added <hiss>. How dishonest of you to put it
in as if I had said it.

Now, I ask you: You claim to be a Christian. Do you think this
is a Christian thing to do (or suggest that someone has a
specific BMI because of a response)? Not in my book.

The golden rule: Do unto others as you would have them
do unto you.

The Christian rule as Christ said: Whatever you do unto the
least of my brothers, you do unto to me.

Or the Hippocratic rule: Whatever houses I may visit, I will
come for the benefit of the sick, remaining free of all
intentional injustice, of all mischief, and in particular of
sexual relations with both male and female persons, be they
free or slaves.

Gee, three rules, and you broke all three.

> > > > I kill myself.... chuckle....
> > >
> > > .. by overeating.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > TC
> > >
> > > You poor guy.
> >
> > <hiss>
> >
> > Jeff

Gee, I never said <hiss> there, either. Gee, isn't there a
commandment of lying? This, in my book, is intellectually
dishonest.

> You poor guy.
>
> I will pray for you, neighbor.

Please, save your prayers for your patients.

> FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
> message.
Because
> the author of the message to which I am responding did not
> request that
the
> header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset
> about reading
this
> message, a few suggestions:
>
> (1) Yell at Jeff

For what? Questioning a poster?

> (2) Report Jeff to his ISP

For what? questioning a poster?

> (3) Killfile this thread.
> (4) Killfile me.
> (5) Read about free speech.

This last one is a good idea.

(...)

Jeff

[Jeff]

"Stephen Nagler" <nagler@tinn.com> wrote in message
news:cjt920tirs5eic2blmprtko497n3ibcbih@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 07 Feb 2004 13:42:37 GMT, jjones@bone.net wrote:
>
> >I don't know much about the diet, but I am assuming that
> >the dr. is
assuming
> >that one eats 2lbs of food in recommended proportion from
> >the five-daily food groups. At least this seems to make
> >most sense to me.
>
> .................
>
> That makes the most sense to me as well. If I were going
> to go on the 2PDiet, I think that's what I would try to
> do - eat balanced meals within the weight constraints of
> the diet.
>
> But the way I read the diet from web site, there is no
> reference to food groups at all. It's two pounds of anything
> - water and sugar-free drinks excepted.
>
> smn

If the two-pound per day diet helps someone lose weight and
keep it off, more power to him.

Although I don't think the two-pound per day diet is a good
one, it is a lot better than a lot of diets, like the one that
keeps one at a BMI of 54.5.

Jeff

[Dr. Andrew]

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c03tgt$4er@library2.airnews.net>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote
> in message news:40254B61.B3B2222@heartmdphd.com...
> > Jeff wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
> > > wrote in message
> > > news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> > > > tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com>...
> > > > > Hey Chung,
> > > > >
> > > > > Which is more fattening?
> > > (...)
> > >
> > > > I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
> > >
> > > <hiss>
> > >
>
> <hiss sputter hiss hiss>
>
> > > > > I kill myself.... chuckle....
> > > >
> > > > .. by overeating.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > TC
> > > >
> > > > You poor guy.
> > >
> > > <hiss>
> > >
> > > Jeff
>
> <hiss>
>
> > You poor guy.
> >
> > I will pray for you, neighbor.
>
> <hiss>
>
> > FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a
> > cross-posted message.
> Because
> > the author of the message to which I am responding did not
> > request that
> the
> > header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset
> > about reading
> this
> > message, a few suggestions:
> >
> > (1) Yell at Jeff
>
> <hiss>
>
> > (2) Report Jeff to his ISP
>
> <hiss>
>
> > (3) Killfile this thread.
> > (4) Killfile me.
> > (5) Read about free speech.
>
> <hiss>
>
>
> Jeff

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Jeff
(2) Report Jeff to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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 JC Der
Koenig, Steve, and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

[Jeff]

You are so funny. Thanks for brightening my day. You can't
even respond to a message in an intelligent manner.

Amazing that you are still practicing medicine. I am glad I am
not your patient.

Jeff

[Matti Nark]

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 07:23:44 -0500 in article
<c059k4$ln1@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You are so funny. Thanks for brightening my day. You can't
>even respond to a message in an intelligent manner.
>
>Amazing that you are still practicing medicine. I am glad I
>am not your patient.
>
I agree with Jeff. According to Jeff's previous message he is
also a physician, So here we see another physician's
assessment of Chung.

Jeff, are you aware that besides his extensive
pseudo-religious babbling and endless flame-wars (in which he
is not above falsifying his opponents' comments) in
sci.med.cardiology and other medical newsgroups, Chung
occasionally also offers "free" (he takes an opportunity to
advertise his practice by providing a link to his web site)
cardiologic advice in sci.med.cardiology?

Taking into consideration the obvious questions about Chung's
ethical and professional standards, and his observed
carelessness with facts in non-cardiologic issues, would you
a) recommend people seeking cardiologic advice from the usenet
newsgroups taking Chung's "free" advice at its face value? b)
if in need of a cardiologist and having a choice of best
available cardiologists consider consulting Chung?

--
Matti Narkia

[Moosh:)]

On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
(tcomeau) posted:

>Hey Chung,
>
>Which is more fattening?
>
>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
>of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
>lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
>french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce Hey Chung,
>
>Which is more fattening?
>
>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
>of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
>lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
>french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
>
>Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh
>2 pounds.
>
>Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
>
>I kill myself.... chuckle....
>
>TC

And it doesn't occur to you to eat a varied wholefood diet
that is limited to two pounds? Whyever not? Is your aim to
confound this strategy, or to attain good health? Curious
minds want to know.

Moosh:)

[Dr. Andrew]

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c059k4$ln1@library2.airnews.net>...
> You are so funny. Thanks for brightening my day. You can't
> even respond to a message in an intelligent manner.

How I respond is a reflection of the message :-)

> Amazing that you are still practicing medicine.

We all practice because it is God's will that we do so.

> I am glad I am not your patient.

Ouch.

You may have at my other cheek :-)

> Jeff

You poor guy.

Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:

11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and
falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven,
for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were
before you.

May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
within SMC.

Amen.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is this all about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657

[Jeff]

"Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)

> Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> Chung's ethical and professional standards, and his
> observed carelessness with facts in non-cardiologic issues,
> would you a) recommend people seeking cardiologic advice
> from the usenet newsgroups taking Chung's "free" advice at
> its face value? b) if in need of a cardiologist and having
> a choice of best
available
> cardiologists consider consulting Chung?

I have no questions about his professional standards: The
questions are limited to his personal and ethical standards
(of course, these make me wonder about his professional
standards as well). No, I would not recommend someone who
would do the things Chung does.

Jeff

>
> --
> Matti Narkia

[Matti Nark]

Sun, 8 Feb 2004 20:05:30 -0500 in article
<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
<kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
>news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
>
>> Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
>> Chung's ethical and professional standards, and his
>> observed carelessness with facts in non-cardiologic issues,
>> would you a) recommend people seeking cardiologic advice
>> from the usenet newsgroups taking Chung's "free" advice at
>> its face value? b) if in need of a cardiologist and having
>> a choice of best
>available
>> cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
>
>I have no questions about his professional standards: The
>questions are limited to his personal and ethical standards
>(of course, these make me wonder about his professional
>standards as well). No, I would not recommend someone who
>would do the things Chung does.
>
Thank you for your reply.

--
Matti Narkia

[Bob]

Moosh:) wrote:

> On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) posted:
>
>
>>Hey Chung,
>>
>>Which is more fattening?
>>
>>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2 lbs
>>of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork fat 2
>>lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs of
>>french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
>>
>>Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh
>>2 pounds.
>>
>>Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
>>
>>I kill myself.... chuckle....
>>
>>TC
>
> And it doesn't occur to you to eat a varied wholefood diet
> that is limited to two pounds? Whyever not? Is your aim to
> confound this strategy, or to attain good health?

Looks like it might be to show through broad satire that
the basic concept of Chung's "diet" is rather silly. Just
a guess...

> Curious minds want to know.

Sure. No prob.

Bob

[Dr. Andrew]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
news:<9sre20d5pc1b01banf4nutl1tjb0m61313@4ax.com>...
> On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) posted:
>
> >Hey Chung,
> >
> >Which is more fattening?
> >
> >2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2
> >lbs of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork
> >fat 2 lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs
> >of french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce Hey Chung,
> >
> >Which is more fattening?
> >
> >2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2
> >lbs of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork
> >fat 2 lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs
> >of french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
> >
> >Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh 2
> >pounds.
> >
> >Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
> >
> >I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >
> >TC
>
> And it doesn't occur to you to eat a varied wholefood diet
> that is limited to two pounds? Whyever not? Is your aim to
> confound this strategy, or to attain good health? Curious
> minds want to know.
>
> Moosh:)

Nice truth discerning questions, Moosh :-)

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Moosh ;-)
(2) Report Moosh to his ISP ;-)
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

TC's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657

[Tcomeau]

"Moosh:)" <spam@less.ever> wrote in message
news:<9sre20d5pc1b01banf4nutl1tjb0m61313@4ax.com>...
> On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> (tcomeau) posted:
>
> >Hey Chung,
> >
> >Which is more fattening?
> >
> >2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2
> >lbs of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork
> >fat 2 lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2 lbs
> >of french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
> >
> >Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh 2
> >pounds.
> >
> >Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
> >
> >I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >
> >TC
>
> And it doesn't occur to you to eat a varied wholefood diet
> that is limited to two pounds? Whyever not? Is your aim to
> confound this strategy, or to attain good health? Curious
> minds want to know.
>
> Moosh:)

So you subscribe to the quack diet do you? Hardly surprising
for a troll.

TC

[Dr. Andrew]

Bob wrote:

> Moosh:) wrote:
>
> > On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
> > (tcomeau) posted:
> >
> >
> >>Hey Chung,
> >>
> >>Which is more fattening?
> >>
> >>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2
> >>lbs of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork
> >>fat 2 lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2
> >>lbs of french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
> >>
> >>Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh 2
> >>pounds.
> >>
> >>Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
> >>
> >>I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >>
> >>TC
> >
> > And it doesn't occur to you to eat a varied wholefood diet
> > that is limited to two pounds? Whyever not? Is your aim to
> > confound this strategy, or to attain good health?
>
> <hiss>
>
> > Curious minds want to know.
>
> Sure. No prob.
>
> Bob

Would be a prob for untruthful folks.

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Bob
(2) Report Bob to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Bob's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657

[Bob]

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

> Bob wrote:
>
>>Moosh:) wrote:
>>
>>>On 6 Feb 2004 21:18:00 -0800, tunderbar@hotmail.com
>>>(tcomeau) posted:
>>>
>>>>Hey Chung,
>>>>
>>>>Which is more fattening?
>>>>
>>>>2 lbs of beef 2 lbs of dried beef jerky 2 lbs of sugar 2
>>>>lbs of fat 2 lbs of soda 2 lbs of diet soda 2 lbs of pork
>>>>fat 2 lbs of olive oil 2 lbs of corn 2 lbs of popcorn 2
>>>>lbs of french fries 2 lbs of celery 2 lbs of lettuce
>>>>
>>>>Trick question, they are all the same. They each weigh 2
>>>>pounds.
>>>>
>>>>Bwah ha ha ha haaaaaa......
>>>>
>>>>I kill myself.... chuckle....
>>>>
>>>>TC
>>>
>>>And it doesn't occur to you to eat a varied wholefood diet
>>>that is limited to two pounds? Whyever not? Is your aim to
>>>confound this strategy, or to attain good health?
>>
>><hiss>

Chung cut out the part that says tcomeau was satirizing the
patently silly Chung s2pid "diet.

>>>Curious minds want to know.
>>
>>Sure. No prob.
>>
>>Bob
>
> Would be a prob for untruthful folks.

Must be a prob for Chung, then. Otherwise why delete and
change people's posts?

Poor, shabby, dishonest poseur Chung.

Bob

[Dr. Andrew]

Matti Narkia wrote:

> Sat, 07 Feb 2004 16:47:46 -0500 in article
> <40255D02.5085776A@heartmdphd.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <andrew@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sat, 7 Feb 2004 14:58:55 -0500 in article
> >> <c03ftl$iq5@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
> >> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com>
> >> >wrote in message
> >> >news:dca6fb39.0402070838.4404b317@posting.google.com...
> >> >> tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
> >> >news:<b550f406.0402062118.614afdbf@posting.google.com-
> >> >>...
> >> >> > Hey Chung,
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Which is more fattening?
> >> >(...)
> >> >
> >> >> I sense someone else whose BMI is 55.
> >> >
> >> >What a sensitive comment for a professional. I bet this
> >> >makes Andrew feel really good about himself.
> >> >
> >> >> > I kill myself.... chuckle....
> >> >>
> >> >> .. by overeating.
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> > TC
> >> >>
> >> >> You poor guy.
> >> >
> >> >It is the poster who I think is poor.
> >> >
> >> >I am a sorry physician that is so unprofessonal. How
> >> >Sad.
> >> >
> >> I agree. It's so sad. What a wasted resource and
> >> education, if you really are
> >>
> >> a doctor.
> >>
> <hiss sputter hiss hiss>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Matti
(2) Report Matti to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Matti's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657

[Dr. Andrew]

Matti Narkia wrote:

> Sun, 8 Feb 2004 07:23:44 -0500 in article
> <c059k4$ln1@library2.airnews.net> "Jeff"
> <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >You are so funny. Thanks for brightening my day. You can't
> >even respond to a message in an intelligent manner.
> >
> >Amazing that you are still practicing medicine. I am glad I
> >am not your patient.
> >
> <approving hiss>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Matti
(2) Report Matti to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Matti's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657

[Dr. Andrew]

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net>...
> "Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
>
> > Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> > Chung's ethical and professional standards, and his
> > observed carelessness with facts in non-cardiologic
> > issues, would you a) recommend people seeking cardiologic
> > advice from the usenet newsgroups taking Chung's "free"
> > advice at its face value? b) if in need of a cardiologist
> > and having a choice of best
> available
> > cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
>
> I have no questions about his professional standards:

Glad to hear it.

> The questions are limited to his personal and ethical
> standards

...which are Christian standards.

> (of course, these make me wonder about his professional
> standards as well).

Seems you would wonder about the professional standards of all
Christian physicians.

> No, I would not recommend someone who would do the things
> Chung does.

Ouch.

You may have at my other cheek.

> Jeff

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Jeff
(2) Report Jeff to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Jeff's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

[Don Kirkma]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD wrote in article
<dca6fb39.0402082204.447183d9@posting.google.com>:

[...]

>Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
>
>11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and
>falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
>12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in
>heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who
>were before you.

And a few sentences before that he said

"Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."

"Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
sons of God."

And immediately following what you quoted he said

"You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its
taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer
good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under
foot by men.

"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot
be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel, but
on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let your
light so shine before men, that they may see your good works
and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."

>May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
>within SMC.

And even more to the following of his word, since actions
speak louder than words.
--
Don donkirk@covad.net

[Dr. Andrew]

Don Kirkman wrote:

> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD wrote in article
> <dca6fb39.0402082204.447183d9@posting.google.com>:
>
> [...]
>
> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:
> >
> >11"Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you
> >and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of
> >me. 12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in
> >heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets
> >who were before you.
>
> And a few sentences before that he said
>
> "Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shall see God."
>

Yes.

This is why it is important to have Christ in your heart.

>
> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons
> of God."
>

Yes.

This is why it is important to walk with Christ.

>
> And immediately following what you quoted he said
>
> "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its
> taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer
> good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under
> foot by men.
>

Yes.

This is why it is important to stay true to Christ.

>
> "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot
> be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel,
> but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let
> your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
> works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."
>

Yes.

This is why it is important to publicly witness for Christ.

>
> >May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
> >within SMC.
>
> And even more to the following of his word, since actions
> speak louder than words.
>

You may use Google to finds these actions you seek.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Don
(2) Report Don to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig, Steve, and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.

(10) 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.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

[Jeff]

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com> wrote
in message
news:dca6fb39.0402101406.4b3b55f0@posting.google.com...
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net>...
> > "Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
> >
> > > Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> > > Chung's ethical
and
> > > professional standards, and his observed carelessness
> > > with facts in non-cardiologic issues, would you a)
> > > recommend people seeking
cardiologic
> > > advice from the usenet newsgroups taking Chung's "free"
> > > advice at its
face
> > > value? b) if in need of a cardiologist and having a
> > > choice of best
> > available
> > > cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
> >
> > I have no questions about his professional standards:
>
> Glad to hear it.
>
> > The questions are limited to his personal and ethical
> > standards
>
> ...which are Christian standards.

Really?

The standards that you use here clearly do not meet what I
think of Christian standards.

1) You text in places to other people's posts to make it look
like they said something they didn't. That is
intellectually dishonest. That doesn't meet any Christian
or professional standard that I know of (unless you work on
Wall St., I guess).

2) When someone questions you , you say things like "Yell at
Jeff." Gee, would Christ do that? Much more Christian thing
to do would be to kindly explain why someone is incorrect.

3) When someone questions your diet, you say something like
"It sounds like his BMI is at least 55." Gee, would Christ
do that? An appropriate way to handle that would be either
to ignore him or to explain, kindly, why he is incorrect.

> > (of course, these make me wonder about his professional
> > standards as well).
>
> Seems you would wonder about the professional standards of
> all Christian physicians.

No.

> > No, I would not recommend someone who would do the things
> > Chung does.
>
> Ouch.
>
> You may have at my other cheek.
>
>
> > Jeff
>
>
> You poor guy.
>
> You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

Please, save our prayers for you patients.

Jeff

> FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
> message. Because the author of the message to which I am
> responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I
> have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this
> message, a few suggestions:
>
> (1) Yell at Jeff
> (2) Report Jeff to his ISP
> (3) Killfile this thread.
> (4) Killfile me.
> (5) Read about free speech.
>
> Jeff's pathological obsessions are 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
> the 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 discussion thread(s).
>
> 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
> (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. Bob "raging and self-confident"
> 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 JC Der
> Koenig and Mack):
>
> (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 continue the discussion(s)
> about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut
> gallery.
>
>
> Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
> Andrew
>
> --
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
> --
> Who is the humblest person in the universe?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
>
> What is all this about?
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

[Tcomeau]

nospam3@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in
message
news:<dca6fb39.0402101406.4b3b55f0@posting.google.com>...
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net>...
> > "Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
> >
> > > Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> > > Chung's ethical and professional standards, and his
> > > observed carelessness with facts in non-cardiologic
> > > issues, would you a) recommend people seeking
> > > cardiologic advice from the usenet newsgroups taking
> > > Chung's "free" advice at its face value? b) if in need
> > > of a cardiologist and having a choice of best
> available
> > > cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
> >
> > I have no questions about his professional standards:
>
> Glad to hear it.

You are a board certified quack.

>
> > The questions are limited to his personal and ethical
> > standards
>
> ...which are Christian standards.
>

By applying the word quack to you, it implies, correctly, that
you lack ethical standards, especially moral or "Christian"
standards.

> > (of course, these make me wonder about his professional
> > standards as well).
>
> Seems you would wonder about the professional standards of
> all Christian physicians.
>

Nobody wonders about any Christian physicians standards. We
all understand clearly that you lack any moral or ethical
standards.

> > No, I would not recommend someone who would do the things
> > Chung does.
>
> Ouch.
>
> You may have at my other cheek.
>

You are still a quack, and a board certified quack at that.

TC

[Dr. Andrew]

Jeff wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <nospam3@heartmdphd.com> wrote
> in message
> news:dca6fb39.0402101406.4b3b55f0@posting.google.com...
> > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net>...
> > > "Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > > news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
> > >
> > > > Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> > > > Chung's ethical
> and
> > > > professional standards, and his observed carelessness
> > > > with facts in non-cardiologic issues, would you a)
> > > > recommend people seeking
> cardiologic
> > > > advice from the usenet newsgroups taking Chung's
> > > > "free" advice at its
> face
> > > > value? b) if in need of a cardiologist and having a
> > > > choice of best
> > > available
> > > > cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
> > >
> > > I have no questions about his professional standards:
> >
> > Glad to hear it.
> >
> > > The questions are limited to his personal and ethical
> > > standards
> >
> > ...which are Christian standards.
>
> Really?
>

Yes.

>
> The standards that you use here clearly do not meet what I
> think of Christian standards.

You are entitled to your opinion.

>
> 1) You text in places to other people's posts to make it
> look like they said something they didn't. That is
> intellectually dishonest.

You would be correct if everything weren't archived. Because
everything here on Usenet is archived and readers can always
look (and are expected to look) at the referenced post for the
original text, "alterations" in the text don't ever really
happen. No, I do not have the power to change what is
archived... and if I did, doing so would be dishonest (is
there such a thing as un-intellectually dishonest?).

> That doesn't meet any Christian or professional standard
> that I know of (unless you work on Wall St., I guess).

Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5:

14"You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot
be hidden. 15Neither do people light a lamp and put it
under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it
gives light to everyone in the house. 16In the same way,
let your light shine before men, that they may see your
good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.

>
>
> 2) When someone questions you , you say things like "Yell at
> Jeff." Gee, would Christ do that? Much more Christian
> thing to do would be to kindly explain why someone is
> incorrect.
>

My answer to someone who questions me is the truth. If the
truth happens to be "Yell at Jeff", then that will be my
answer. Christ would also answer with the truth. Doing as
Christ would do is being Christian.

>
> 3) When someone questions your diet, you say something like
> "It sounds like his BMI is at least 55." Gee, would
> Christ do that? An appropriate way to handle that would
> be either to ignore him or to explain, kindly, why he is
> incorrect.

My answer to someone who questions me is the truth. If the
truth happens to be "I sense a BMI of 55", then that will be
my answer. Christ would also answer with the truth. Doing as
Christ would do is being Christian.

>
> > > (of course, these make me wonder about his professional
> > > standards as well).
> >
> > Seems you would wonder about the professional standards of
> > all Christian physicians.
>
> No.
>

Still seems that way to me.

>
> > > No, I would not recommend someone who would do the
> > > things Chung does.
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
> > You may have at my other cheek.
> >
> >
> > > Jeff
> >
> >
> > You poor guy.
> >
> > You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
>
> Please, save our prayers for you patients.
>

People, not prayers, are saved.

>
> Jeff

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday, so
that you too will have eternal life and the boundless riches
of God's kingdom.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Jeff
(2) Report Jeff to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Jeff's obsessions are 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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig, Steve, and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

[Dr. Andrew]

tcomeau wrote:

> nospam3@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote
> in message
> news:<dca6fb39.0402101406.4b3b55f0@posting.google.com>...
> > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net>...
> > > "Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > > news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
> > >
> > > > Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> > > > Chung's ethical and professional standards, and his
> > > > observed carelessness with facts in non-cardiologic
> > > > issues, would you a) recommend people seeking
> > > > cardiologic advice from the usenet newsgroups taking
> > > > Chung's "free" advice at its face value? b) if in need
> > > > of a cardiologist and having a choice of best
> > available
> > > > cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
> > >
> > > I have no questions about his professional standards:
> >
> > Glad to hear it.
>
> <hiss>
>
> >
> > > The questions are limited to his personal and ethical
> > > standards
> >
> > ...which are Christian standards.
> >
>
> <hiss>
>
> > > (of course, these make me wonder about his professional
> > > standards as well).
> >
> > Seems you would wonder about the professional standards of
> > all Christian physicians.
> >
>
> <hiss>
>
> > > No, I would not recommend someone who would do the
> > > things Chung does.
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
> > You may have at my other cheek.
> >
>
> <hiss>
>
> TC

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at TC
(2) Report TC to his ISP.
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

TC's obsessions are 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig, Steve, and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

--
Dt. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

[Steve]

On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 0:09:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
wrote (in message
<94bac1d0a4198a39e9a7f3b14b07aa15@news.teranews.com>):

>> 1) You text in places to other people's posts to make it
>> look like they said something they didn't. That is
>> intellectually dishonest.
>
> You would be correct if everything weren't archived. Because
> everything here on Usenet is archived and readers can always
> look (and are expected to look) at the referenced post for
> the original text, "alterations" in the text don't ever
> really happen. No, I do not have the power to change what is
> archived... and if I did, doing so would be dishonest (is
> there such a thing as un-intellectually dishonest?).

Unbelievable. By this standard, bearing false witness against
anyone is also OK because the victim is always available to
correct it.

You have shown yourself a slime on two counts: first by doing
it and second by attempting to rationalize it... and a poor
attempt at that.

If it weren't for bad ethics, you'd have no ethics at all.

There is certainly be no need to modify _your_ words in
this post. There is no way to modify them which results in
a less flattering picture of you than that which you
yourself have provided.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

[Bob]

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

> Jeff wrote:

>>1) You text in places to other people's posts to make it
>> look like they said something they didn't. That is
>> intellectually dishonest.
>
> You would be correct if everything weren't archived. Because
> everything here on Usenet is archived and readers can always
> look (and are expected to look) at the referenced post for
> the original text, "alterations" in the text don't ever
> really happen.

Why is "alterations" in quotes? No one said it before Chung.

Chung tries to excuse his changing posts that he quotes and
falls on his face with lies and illogic. Archived posts can't
be changed, that's true. But the changes that Chung makes in
the words of others are also archived. His deceit is archived.
Every post he has altered is archived. So Chung is
demonstrably a liar.

> No, I do not have the power to change what is archived...

Note that Chung is protesting what no one has asserted. NO one
has said he changes archived posts. The irrefutable accusation
is that Chung changes posts he quotes.

> and if I did, doing so would be dishonest

So Chung, in his failed sophistry admits he's a liar. He
changes posts he quotes; this truth is simple. Those changes
are archived along with the originals. Chung is, de facto,
dishonest like he says.

> (is there such a thing as un-intellectually dishonest?).

Uh, ha ha. That's Chung's idea of a joke. And, yes, there is.
Most of Mu_gly's posts and a good percentage of Chung's.

Bob

[Bob]

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

> Don Kirkman wrote:

>>"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot
>>be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a bushel,
>>but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the house. Let
>>your light so shine before men, that they may see your good
>>works and give glory to your Father who is in heaven."
>>
> Yes.
>
> This is why it is important to publicly witness for Christ.

More likely, it's an injunction to *set a good example* in
daily action. Rather than to pray on the street corners, more
to be seen than to do any good.

It's far, far better to demonstrate the life of Christ than to
rant and hawk his life as though Jesus were some used car to
be hustled.

Bob

[Dr. Andrew]

Steve wrote (edited to read more truthfully):
>
> On Wed, 11 Feb 2004 0:09:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD wrote (in message
> <94bac1d0a4198a39e9a7f3b14b07aa15@news.teranews.com>):
>
> >> 1) You text in places to other people's posts to make it
> >> look like they said something they didn't. That is
> >> intellectually dishonest.
> >
> > You would be correct if everything weren't archived.
> > Because everything here on Usenet is archived and readers
> > can always look (and are expected to look) at the
> > referenced post for the original text, "alterations" in
> > the text don't ever really happen. No, I do not have the
> > power to change what is archived... and if I did, doing so
> > would be dishonest (is there such a thing as
> > un-intellectually dishonest?).
>
> This is unbelievable to the untruthful. By this standard,
> bearing true witness against someone who is untruthful is OK
> because the untruthful are always available to uncorrect it.

Yes. Moreover, in the case of the untruthful, it would be OK
even if the untruthful were not available.

> You have shown yourself truthful on two counts: first by
> being truthful and second by acting truthful... and you are
> good at this.

The praises all belong to God :-)

> If it weren't for good ethics, you'd have no ethics at all.

Correct.

> There is certainly be no need to modify _your_ words in this
> post. There is no way to modify them which results in a more
> flattering picture of you than that which you yourself have
> provided.
>
> --
> Steve

You poor guy.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-certified Cardiologist
http:/www.heartmdphd.com/

Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W3C323D57

[Dr. Andrew]

Bob wrote:

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Don Kirkman wrote:
>
> >>"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
> >>cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a
> >>bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the
> >>house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may
> >>see your good works and give glory to your Father who is
> >>in heaven."
> >>
> > Yes.
> >
> > This is why it is important to publicly witness for
> > Christ.
>
> More likely, it's an injunction to *set a good example* in
> daily action.

Like the AA pilot who was moved by God to have Christians and
non-christians talk to each other.

Like my witnessing to you.

> Rather than to pray on the street corners, more to be seen
> than to do any good.
>

Who here is praying at a street corner?

>
> It's far, far better to demonstrate the life of Christ than
> to rant and hawk his life as though Jesus were some used car
> to be hustled.
>

Agree.

>
> Bob

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Bob
(2) Report Bob to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Bob's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

--
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

[Bob]

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

> Steve wrote (edited to read more truthfully):

End of discussion. Chung rewrites other people's words. So
frightened is he of the revelations about him that they make
that he can't permit them to survive. So terrified of the
mirror they hold up to his soul that he must frantically
delete them.

Poor un-sane Chung.

Bob

[Pizza Girl]

TC, the SuperTroll of smn must have been killfiltered by
everybody in smn. In otherwords, he was tired of being ignored
there and has now come here for the "action"

"tcomeau" <tunderbar@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:b550f406.0402102056.7185e60c@posting.google.com...
> nospam3@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote
> in message
news:<dca6fb39.0402101406.4b3b55f0@posting.google.com>...
> > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<c06o0o$u2g@library2.airnews.net>...
> > > "Matti Narkia" <mnng@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > > news:72gc20l49jva1sfn2bub3gj52kek3uhifq@4ax.com... (...)
> > >
> > > > Taking into consideration the obvious questions about
> > > > Chung's
ethical and
> > > > professional standards, and his observed carelessness
> > > > with facts in non-cardiologic issues, would you a)
> > > > recommend people seeking
cardiologic
> > > > advice from the usenet newsgroups taking Chung's
> > > > "free" advice at
its face
> > > > value? b) if in need of a cardiologist and having a
> > > > choice of best
> > available
> > > > cardiologists consider consulting Chung?
> > >
> > > I have no questions about his professional standards:
> >
> > Glad to hear it.
>
> You are a board certified quack.
>
> >
> > > The questions are limited to his personal and ethical
> > > standards
> >
> > ...which are Christian standards.
> >
>
> By applying the word quack to you, it implies, correctly,
> that you lack ethical standards, especially moral or
> "Christian" standards.
>
>
> > > (of course, these make me wonder about his professional
> > > standards as well).
> >
> > Seems you would wonder about the professional standards of
> > all Christian physicians.
> >
>
> Nobody wonders about any Christian physicians standards. We
> all understand clearly that you lack any moral or ethical
> standards.
>
> > > No, I would not recommend someone who would do the
> > > things Chung does.
> >
> > Ouch.
> >
> > You may have at my other cheek.
> >
>
> You are still a quack, and a board certified quack at that.
>
> TC

[Bob]

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

> Bob wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>Don Kirkman wrote:
>>
>>>>"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
>>>>cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a
>>>>bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the
>>>>house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may
>>>>see your good works and give glory to your Father who is
>>>>in heaven."
>>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>This is why it is important to publicly witness for Christ.
>>
>>More likely, it's an injunction to *set a good example* in
>>daily action.
>
> Like the AA pilot who was moved by God to have Christians
> and non-christians talk to each other.

Exactly *not* like the pilot who disturbed and scared people
with his irrational fanaticism. And calling non-Christians
"crazy." Exactly *not* like that pilot.

> Like my witnessing to you.

Chung's "witnessing" is nothing more than attempting to shout
down anyone who disagrees with him. Prattling the same old
inanities with a macro in endless repetitions of a flawed and
false message. That's not "witnessing," it's vomiting.

>>Rather than to pray on the street corners, more to be seen
>>than to do any good.
>>
> Who here is praying at a street corner?

All the phony Christians who feel the need to condemn, vilify
and lie while claiming to be saved. All those phony Christians
who feel they have the right to impugn, denigrate and
castigate others for not believing the same wacko nonsense
they do. Those people.

>>It's far, far better to demonstrate the life of Christ than
>>to rant and hawk his life as though Jesus were some used car
>>to be hustled.
>>
> Agree.

Chung agrees. Why then, does he not do it? *Demonstrate*
Christlike behavior rather than merely refer to it as though
it were a fait accompli? Act like Christ rather than like some
barbarians who seek to inflict deliberate pain.

Christ wouldn't have given the AMA false information. Christ
wouldn't have let his ego run so far away from him as to
insist that 2 pounds of potatoes contains 3600 calories.
Christ wouldn't have been fired form a medical facility for
not treating people very well. Christ wouldn't have stood by
while innuendoes of pedophilia flew around. And Christ
wouldn't have let M_alicious play his vile games.

Chung's "witnessing" is all sound and fury...

Bob

[Dr. Andrew]

Bob wrote:

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Bob wrote:
> >
> >>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>>Don Kirkman wrote:
> >>
> >>>>"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
> >>>>cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under
> >>>>a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in
> >>>>the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they
> >>>>may see your good works and give glory to your Father
> >>>>who is in heaven."
> >>>>
> >>>Yes.
> >>>
> >>>This is why it is important to publicly witness for
> >>>Christ.
> >>
> >>More likely, it's an injunction to *set a good example* in
> >>daily action.
> >
> > Like the AA pilot who was moved by God to have Christians
> > and non-christians talk to each other.
>
> Exactly *not* like the pilot who disturbed and scared people
> with his irrational fanaticism.

You seemed disturbed and scared, Bob.

Do you believe this is my problem?

> And calling non-Christians "crazy."

And, when did this AA pilot call non-Christians "crazy" ?

Was it before or after the non-Christians started to act
crazy?

> Exactly *not* like that pilot.
>

This AA pilot did set a Christian example.

>
> > Like my witnessing to you.
>
> Chung's "witnessing" is nothing more than attempting to
> shout down anyone who disagrees with him. Prattling the same
> old inanities with a macro in endless repetitions of a
> flawed and false message. That's not "witnessing," it's
> vomiting.
>

Try not to look away when I am writing to you. I am not
shouting at you.

Why are you fearful?

>
> >>Rather than to pray on the street corners, more to be seen
> >>than to do any good.
> >>
> > Who here is praying at a street corner?
>
> All the phony Christians who feel the need to condemn,
> vilify and lie while claiming to be saved.

I see none of that here.

> All those phony Christians who feel they have the right to
> impugn, denigrate and castigate others for not believing the
> same wacko nonsense they do. Those people.
>

I see none of that here.

>
> >>It's far, far better to demonstrate the life of Christ
> >>than to rant and hawk his life as though Jesus were some
> >>used car to be hustled.
> >>
> > Agree.
>
> Chung agrees.

You remind me of a child who while being berated is unable to
meet the gaze of his parents.

> Why then, does he not do it?

I do.

http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

> *Demonstrate* Christlike behavior rather than merely refer
> to it as though it were a fait accompli?

I do.

http://www.thewellnessfoundation.com

> Act like Christ rather than like some barbarians who seek to
> inflict deliberate pain.

According to some folks, I do.

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

>
>
> Christ wouldn't have given the AMA false information.

I have not given the AMA false information.

> Christ wouldn't have let his ego run so far away from him as
> to insist that 2 pounds of potatoes contains 3600 calories.

2 pounds of potatoes is about 3600 calories for those who are
counting calories.

When counting calories, one should always round up and not
down for obvious reasons.

> Christ wouldn't have been fired form a medical facility for
> not treating people very well.

I have never been fired from a medical facility.

Nor have I ever mistreated any patient.

> Christ wouldn't have stood by while innuendoes of pedophilia
> flew around.

Christ would have had the power to squelch untruths at the
source. I do not have that power.

> And Christ wouldn't have let M_alicious play his vile games.
>

Christ allowed Peter to slice off another person's ear.

>
> Chung's "witnessing" is all sound and fury...
>

Truth has that effect on the untruthful.

>
> Bob

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Bob
(2) Report Bob to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Bob's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

--
Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Ds. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

[Dr. Andrew]

Bob wrote:

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Steve wrote (edited to read more truthfully):
>
> <fearful hiss snipped>
>

Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

>
> Bob

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
message. Because the author of the message to which I am
responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Bob
(2) Report Bob to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

Bob's pathological obsessions are 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
the 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 discussion thread(s).

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:

(6) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(7) 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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(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. Bob "raging and
self-confident" 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 JC Der
Koenig and Mack):

(6) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no
credibility (or accountability).
(7) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google,
unsavory characters.
(8) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except
to deliver one-sided insults.
(9) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(10) 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 continue the discussion(s) about
the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

[Bob]

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

> Bob wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>Steve wrote (edited to read more truthfully):
>>
>><fearful hiss snipped>
>
> Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

<LOL> WHat effect? It makes them delete other people's
words and substitute one more (in a seemingly endless
string of) <hiss> ?

How silly is Chung. Like an idiot child with no sense of when
it's time to just let it go after being shown to be so
shallow, obsessed and compulsive to the point that he MUST
reply even if it's an empty one. As most seem to be at this
late date.

Bob

[Bob]

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

> Bob wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>Bob wrote:
>>>
>>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Don Kirkman wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>"You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
>>>>>>cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under
>>>>>>a bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in
>>>>>>the house. Let your light so shine before men, that they
>>>>>>may see your good works and give glory to your Father
>>>>>>who is in heaven."
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>This is why it is important to publicly witness for
>>>>>Christ.
>>>>
>>>>More likely, it's an injunction to *set a good example* in
>>>>daily action.
>>>
>>>Like the AA pilot who was moved by God to have Christians
>>>and non-christians talk to each other.
>>
>>Exactly *not* like the pilot who disturbed and scared people
>>with his irrational fanaticism.
>
> You seemed disturbed and scared, Bob.

I *am* revolted and repelled by the insane actions of that
pilot that Chung seems to think did a good thing in
insulting and terrifying the very passengers he's supposed
to protect. I'm disturbed in the same way any person with
even the remotest concern for others would be disturbed by
that fanatical lunatic who forgot what his sworn function
was. I'm not a bit scared, but I certainly am disgusted by
that pilot's performance and Chung's championing of yet
another fundamentalist wacko and his twisted understanding
of Jesus' messages.

> Do you believe this is my problem?

I believe that Chung's problems include that he's a liar, a
fraud, a quack, a charlatan, a dissembler. I believe that
Chung's problems manifest themselves in a barbarian viewpoint
that uses other people's essential decency against them. I
believe that this may be the least of Chung's problems.

>>And calling non-Christians "crazy."
>
> And, when did this AA pilot call non-Christians "crazy" ?

Apparently Chung has done his typical "research." You know,
that "Truth Discernment" foolishness where he has no need to
read accounts or investigate any sources for what actually
happened. A big part of the reason people - Christians and
non-Christians alike - on the plane were scared was because he
called non-Christians "crazy" and asked for actions
inconsistent with what the situation should have included.
It's the old "Scare the Shit out of them for Jesus" style of
"witnessing." I'm sure it's very effective. Bah.

> Was it before or after the non-Christians started to
> act crazy?

Chung is perhaps the single sleaziest person I've ever had
the nauseatingly unpleasant experience of having anything
to do with.

The pilot didn't say they were *acting* crazy. He said they
*were* crazy. Reported by the crew and passengers.

Frightening a plane full of people by erratic and wildly
inappropriate behavior is acceptable for Chung. This is
astonishing in it's utter lack of touch with anything remotely
human. It's ok to terrorize people in Jesus' name. It's ok to
call people names in Jesus' name. It's ok to ignore duty in
Jesus' name. It's all ok with Chung. It's "witnessing" for the
benefit of the terrified people on the plane and Chung, the
insensate fraud, thinks this will bring people to "the light."

>>Exactly *not* like that pilot.
>
> This AA pilot did set a Christian example.

This Pilot set a profoundly disgraceful example of what
fanatical egotism will lead a person to do. He should be fired
and fined for being so derelict in his duty to an aircraft
full of people that he terrorized.

>>>Like my witnessing to you.
>>
>>Chung's "witnessing" is nothing more than attempting to
>>shout down anyone who disagrees with him. Prattling the same
>>old inanities with a macro in endless repetitions of a
>>flawed and false message. That's not "witnessing," it's
>>vomiting.
>>
> Try not to look away when I am writing to you. I am not
> shouting at you.

What a profoundly stupid thing to say. Unutterably insane.
Astonishingly off the mark for anything in this thread. Chung
seems to be going completely round the bend with such
locutions. "Looking away..." What insanity.

> Why are you fearful?

<LOL> Why is Chung so often so wrong?

>>>>It's far, far better to demonstrate the life of Christ
>>>>than to rant and hawk his life as though Jesus were some
>>>>used car to be hustled.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Agree.
>>
>>Chung agrees.
>
> You remind me of a child who while being berated is unable
> to meet the gaze of his parents.

<LOL> Poor Chung works so hard at these preposterous images.
Trying something new, I see. Just as lame as the rest. Chung
is almost as scary as your average Beanie Baby. Steam from a
teakettle, whistling and accomplishing nothing.

>>Why then, does he not do it?
>
> I do.

Chung lies, denigrates, deceives...

Just like he's saying Jesus did. Good grasp on reality,
huh...?

> http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp

Oh, right,. The website where the trolling for patients
happens. Very Christlike.

>>*Demonstrate* Christlike behavior rather than merely refer
>>to it as though it were a fait accompli?
>
> I do.
>
> http://www.thewellnessfoundation.com

<LOL> It's that same old "donate the proceeds to charity from
a website that, um, doesn't have proceeds.

"HeartMDPhD.com is an ongoing project run by Dr. Chung that
provides medical information to on-line visitors with 100% of
proceeds becoming donations to various selected charitable
organizations including The Wellness Foundation, Inc."

Provides online medical information...? I wonder if he
gives meds and dosages there, too. And maybe tells people
in other countries how to deal with their medbiz people.
Doesn't look like there are too many people sharing the
bounty of Chung's quackery.

<LOL>

>Act like Christ rather than like some barbarians who seek to
>>inflict deliberate pain.
>
> According to some folks, I do.
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?N13D32F57

But according to virtually everybody else, that isn't so. Poor
Chung thinks that one opinion that agrees with him constitutes
a majority. <LOL>

>>Christ wouldn't have given the AMA false information.
>
> I have not given the AMA false information.

The AMA web site said that Chung had privileges in three
hospitals. It doesn't any more. Chung removed it after having
the at information shown to be false. NOW, the AMA no longer
has false information from Chung. But it was there and it's
archived in Google and it's not subject to change, as Chung
has noted.

>>Christ wouldn't have let his ego run so far away from him as
>>to insist that 2 pounds of potatoes contains 3600 calories.
>
> 2 pounds of potatoes is about 3600 calories for those who
> are counting calories.

Unfortunately for Chung, 2 pounds of potatoes isn't 3600
calories for those who count calories or those who don't. This
is flat out wrong. Period. The fact of it's being wrong isn't
any sort of big question. The real point is Chung's
unaccountable insistence on his correctness in the face of
good, scientific evidence that he's wrong. And, having been
shown his error and how far off the mark it is, he still
insists that he's correct.

> When counting calories, one should always round up and not
> down for obvious reasons.

Value per 100 grams of edible portion - energy - 93 kcal 1
potato large (3" to 4-1/4" dia) 299 g - energy - 278.070 kcal
2 pounds = 908 grams = 844 kcal

<LOLOL> One should round up approximately 850 to 3600? It's a
rather sad show for Chung to so doggedly insist on this number
or even this order of magnitude for this issue. It's patently
wrong, demonstrably wrong, and reflects disastrously on any
claim he has about being knowledgeable about nutrition and

>>Christ wouldn't have been fired form a medical facility for
>>not treating people very well.
>
> I have never been fired from a medical facility.

Really? Chung said he was let go for reasons other than
patient care, remember. I believe he raised the ugly face of
racism, IIRC. Is it his claim now that it never happened at
all; none of it? That he wasn't ever working in a Florida
health care facility? And that his Florida license was just
something to do for what, amusement? Why, I wonder, did Chung
bother to get that license? And what about the 86 days on the
job and then not on the job?

> Nor have I ever mistreated any patient.

So Chung says...

>>Christ wouldn't have stood by while innuendoes of pedophilia
>>flew around.
>
> Christ would have had the power to squelch untruths at the
> source. I do not have that power.

Chung doesn't have the power to *not say scurrilous things*?
He lacks the power to simply not post his vile innuendoes? He
doesn't have the power to *not* lie? He doesn't have the power
to *not* post fraudulent assertions?

Poor Chung. No power over himself. No power over his actions.

>>And Christ wouldn't have let M_alicious play his vile games.
>
> Christ allowed Peter to slice off another person's ear.

And then what happened...? Anybody. But Chung certainly isn't
Christ (LOL)

And Mu_le P_atty is free to play his vile games. But he's
quiet lately. Bet he's off on another vacation through the
Ozarks in the old RV with Mrs. Mu and the little Mu_nkeys. Or
could he be off on one of his secret missions behind enemy
lines. Scarf flying in the wind as he shouts, "Contact" to the
guy who whirls the wooden propellor on his Sopwith-Camel. Soon
M_o F_o is flying above the clouds about to parachute onto the
roof of the castle where Baron C_hung and his evil henchmen
are holed up...

>>Chung's "witnessing" is all sound and fury...
>
> Truth has that effect on the untruthful.

Obviously Shakespeare is outside Chung's schooling. So is
coherent thought and writing, but no news there...

Bob

[Bob]

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

> I claim to be truthful. You don't even make that claim
> (because in your heart, even you yourself do not
> believe it).

The truthful don't need to make claims.

>>>>Christ wouldn't have given the AMA false information.
>>>
>>>I have not given the AMA false information.
>>
>>The AMA web site said that Chung had privileges in three
>>hospitals. It doesn't any more. Chung removed it after
>>having the at information shown to be false. NOW, the AMA no
>>longer has false information from Chung. But it was there
>>and it's archived in Google and it's not subject to change,
>>as Chung has noted.
>
> The truth remains:
>
> I have not ever given the AMA false information.

Well, let's puzzle this out. The AMA site had info that said
that Chung had staff privileges at three hospitals. The site
says that the info comes from the doctors and isn't checked.
So either Chung or some agent of his gave them that info.
Ergo, Chung gave the AMA false info.

Or is CHung about to say that some anonymous person got the
AMA to put it up and it was entirely outside his knowledge?
Will he fire somebody in his office to cover his rather
serious blunder? Should we add "imposture" to Chung's parade
of dishonesty?

>>>>Christ wouldn't have let his ego run so far away from him
>>>>as to insist that 2 pounds of potatoes contains 3600
>>>>calories.
>>>
>>>2 pounds of potatoes is about 3600 calories for those who
>>>are counting calories.
>>
>>Unfortunately for Chung, 2 pounds of potatoes isn't 3600
>>calories for those who count calories or those who don't.
>>This is flat out wrong.
>
> Folks who choose to believe you will gain weight.

Folks who believe THE TRUTH will gain weight? So in the
Chungian universe, knowledge=failure? OR is it that accuracy
is to be eschewed in favor of wild-assed guesses, too high by
a factor of more than 4? Or is this the REAL premise of the
s2PiD "diet?"

But wait. I thought that calories didn't matter with the s2PiD
"diet." Do they suddenly? Is it like the first "direction" was
to use "common sense." Then it became "see your doctor." Now
it's "count the calories?" How confusing all these changes
will become before this "diet" ever becomes useful...

>>Period. The fact of it's being wrong isn't any sort of big
>>question. The real point is Chung's unaccountable insistence
>>on his correctness in the face of good, scientific evidence
>>that he's wrong. And, having been shown his error and how
>>far off the mark it is, he still insists that he's correct.
>
> I am.

It would be nice if Chung were to supply *any* decent source
that provides any documentation of this magic number - 3600
calories in 2 pounds of potatoes - but we all know that's not
his way. He don' need no steenkeen proof for what he says.

>>>When counting calories, one should always round up and not
>>>down for obvious reasons.
>>
>>Value per 100 grams of edible portion - energy - 93 kcal 1
>>potato large (3" to 4-1/4" dia) 299 g - energy - 278.070
>>kcal 2 pounds = 908 grams = 844 kcal
>
> Folks who believe that 2 pounds of potatoes is only 844 kcal
> (less than 1 kcal per gram) will surely gain weight even if
> they are calorie counting.

Folks who believe that 2 pounds of potatoes contain 844
calories will believe scientifically arrived-at information.
They believe the truth and can govern themselves accordingly.

It looks like Chung is making the perfectly stupid blunder of
considering potatoes to be pure carbohydrates. <LOL> Some
scientist.

Here. Let's add some info from the USDA database: "Potatoes,
mashed, dehydrated, flakes without milk, dry form Value per
100 grams of edible portion - 354 kcal 1 cup (48 g) -
169.920 kcal

"Potatoes, mashed, dehydrated, prepared from flakes without
milk, whole milk and butter added" Value per 100 grams of
edible portion - 97 kcal 1 cup (48 g) - 203.700 kcal

So even if we take the dehydrated spuds, at 354 calories per
hundred grams and multiply by 908, we still only get 3186
calories. And that's if you eat them dry. Yechhh.

So have him tell everyone about his 2 pounds of food for
Everest climbers. Looks like those spuds were about 75% water.
So 2 pounds of food for the climbers, when prepared, becomes 8
pounds in the real world? CAn we say "flaw of logic, math and
prescription?"

>><LOLOL> One should round up approximately 850 to 3600? It's
>>a rather sad show for Chung to so doggedly insist on this
>>number or even this order of magnitude for this issue. It's
>>patently wrong, demonstrably wrong, and reflects
>>disastrously on any claim he has about being knowledgeable
>>about nutrition and
>
> Is it any wonder that you are overweight, Bob?

<LOL> Evade as he will, potatoes contain the calories they do,
irrespective of Chung's absurd insistence on "rounding" that
introduces a blunder-factor of more than 4 times the real
figures. No matter how he wiggles and squirms, it's 844
calories in 2 pounds, measured and posted on the USDA Nutrient
Database, versus Chung's deeply erroneous guesswork.

>>>>Christ wouldn't have been fired form a medical facility
>>>>for not treating people very well.
>>>
>>>I have never been fired from a medical facility.
>>
>>Really?
>
> Yes.
>
>>Chung said he was let go for reasons other than patient
>>care, remember.
>
> The truth remains: I have never been an employee of a
> medical facility.

Why do I think we're getting more reptilian Chung logic here?
Chung was "connected" with a Florida medbiz operation that
made him leave. However the *precise* wording goes, it still
means that he was sent packing. Check the cites below for his
own words to be the proof that he did work in a Florida
medical facility. "Employee" is a weasel-hedge."

>>I believe he raised the ugly face of racism, IIRC.
>
> If that were true, you should be able to easily provide a
> Google cite.

Well, I didn't recall correctly. The couple-years-old
reference to racism was not about his dismissal from the
facility in Ocala. It was part of another conversation but
related. I did find some very interesting posts starting with:
<http://tinyurl.com/2s635>

Other "Conversations with Chung" <http://tinyurl.com/3bodp>
<http://tinyurl.com/2487n>

I love this comment from Chung: "negative comments about an
American's ethnic background is racism..."
<http://tinyurl.com/2x4rb> So when Chung's alter ego M_asshole
makes "Italian" comments to me it's racism? Hardly. It may be
stupid and yet another attempt at malicious "play," but it's
hardly racism. <LOL> Poor CHung and his "home-made
dictionary."

Skip around to find other words from Chung:
<http://tinyurl.com/3eawh> Something about "lawsuits from the
citizenry": <http://tinyurl.com/2s635>

>>Is it his claim now that it never happened at all;
>>none of it?
>
> What are you referring to, Bob?
>
>>That he wasn't ever working in a Florida health care
>>facility?
>
> Correct.

In the cites above, Chung freely admits working in a health
care facility in Ocala, Florida. Looks like a direct
contradiction. That means <drum roll> that one is a <bigger
drum roll> LIE.

>>And that his Florida license was just something to do for
>>what, amusement?
>
> No.
>
>>Why, I wonder, did Chung bother to get that license?
>
> To practice medicine.
>
>>And what about the 86 days on the job and then not on
>>the job?
>
> I did reside in Florida for a few months.

<LOL> Notice Chung's non-answer.

So Chung went to the effort to get a license in Florida so he
could "reside" there "for a few months." Why does my
crapsniffer register Chung's words very high on the
Dissembling Scale? Why does this sound like some guy with
tight lips hoping that the exactly right words aren't dropped
into the conversation.

He says in the googled posts cited above that he worked in
Florida. Why deny it now" Why add another lie to his already
extensive list of lies?

>>>Nor have I ever mistreated any patient.
>>
>>So Chung says...
>
> as a Christian.

And we've seen what that's worth in Chung's hands.

>>>Christ
>>>>wouldn't have stood by while innuendoes of pedophilia flew
>>>>around.
>>>
>>>Christ would have had the power to squelch untruths at the
>>>source. I do not have that power.
>>
>>Chung doesn't have the power to *not say scurrilous things*?
>
> I remain truthful.
>
>>He lacks the power to simply not post his vile innuendoes?
>
> I remain truthful.
>
>>He doesn't have the power to *not* lie?
>
> I remain truthful.
>
>>He doesn't have the power to *not* post fraudulent
>>assertions?
>
> I remain truthful.
>
>>Poor Chung. No power over himself. No power over his
>>actions.
>
> God has all the power, neighbor.

And God gave us free will. Chung doesn't *have to* lie. He
*chooses* to.

Has it ever been so bluntly clear that only liars feel the
need to protest their honesty? Good ol Andy "I'm not that kind
of girl" Chung.

>>And Mu_le P_atty is free to play his vile games.
>
> Mu is God's foil for you.
>
> Mu is letting me try to heal you.

<LOLOL> Right. Chung's "healing" consists of scorn, mockery,
lying and generally dishonest behavior. I bet that's got a
high success rate. <LOL>

>>>>Chung's "witnessing" is all sound and fury...
>>>
>>>Truth has that effect on the untruthful.
>>
>>Obviously Shakespeare is outside Chung's schooling.
>
> Shakespeare's life was but sound and fury.
>
> Without Christ, that's the most our lives can be.

So, wait. Chung who didn't know the reference because he knows
nothing about Shakespeare suddenly knows that Shakespeare
wasn't a Christian? Wasn't Chung's type of unbalanced wacko
Christian, maybe - well, almost certainly? It's that Truth
Discernment Ray Gun again, isn't it. It can work, not just
online. It can work through time as well. <LOL>

>>So is coherent thought and writing, but no news there...
>
> The good news is in Christ's teachings, Bob.

Well, it certainly isn't in the Chung translation of Jesus'
words. I'll stick with the honest translations.

>>Bob "sound and fury" Pastorio

<LOLOL> I literally laughed out loud at this latest addition
to my name. Poor Chung tries to tar others with the brush
stuck to him. Too funny. That fatuous Chung "rubber-glue"
thing. How mature.

Bob

[Franklin S]

On 7 Feb 2004, nospam3@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD) wrote:
>
>FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
>message. Because the author of the message to which I am
>responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
>not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message,
>a few suggestions:
>
>(1) Yell at TC
>(2) Report TC to his ISP
>(3) Killfile this thread.
>(4) Killfile me.
>(5) Read about free speech.
>
>TC's pathological obsessions are 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
>the 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 discussion thread(s).
>
>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://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
>(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 JC Der
>Koenig and Mack):
>
>(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 continue the
>discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing
>from the peanut gallery.
>
>
>Servant to the humblest person in the universe,
>
>Andrew
>
>--
>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/
>
>--
>Who is the humblest person in the universe?
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

Is it really necessary tpost all this drivel *every* time you
post something? At least put it below your cutmarks.

--
Franklin Smart

[Don Kirkma]

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD wrote in article
<e61d18a67f25f58ef19465744707c308@news.teranews.com>:

>Don Kirkman wrote:

>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD wrote in article
>> <dca6fb39.0402082204.447183d9@posting.google.com>:

>> [...]

>> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5: 11"Blessed are you
>> >when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all
>> >kinds of evil against you because of me. 12Rejoice and be
>> >glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the
>> >same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

>> And a few sentences before that he said "Blessed are the
>> pure in heart, for they shall see God."

>Yes. This is why it is important to have Christ in your
>heart.

And to demonstrate that in daily behavior, which is pretty
much what "having Christ in your heart" means.

>> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called sons
>> of God."

>Yes. This is why it is important to walk with Christ.

And to behave as he did, which is pretty much what "walking
with Christ" means.

>> And immediately following what you quoted he said

>> "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its
>> taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no longer
>> good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under
>> foot by men.

>Yes. This is why it is important to stay true to Christ.

And to his own ethical standards.

>> "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
>> cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a
>> bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the
>> house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may
>> see your good works and give glory to your Father who is in
>> heaven."

>Yes. This is why it is important to publicly witness
>for Christ.

Yes, instead of parroting empty phrases. Shouting and scare
tactics are not very effective public witness.

>> >May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word here
>> >within SMC.

>> And even more to the following of his word, since actions
>> speak louder than words.

>You may use Google to finds these actions you seek.

Google has words; actions are to be seen in the way people
treat each other in their daily lives.

>FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
>message. Because the author of the message to which I am
>responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have
>not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message,
>a few suggestions:

>(1) Yell at Don
>(2) Report Don to his ISP.

And be laughed at.

>(3) Killfile this thread.
>(4) Killfile me.
>(5) Read about free speech.

Which is, first, a political concept that doesn't apply to
private behavior and, second, what I am exercising by
discussing these matters. However, I recognize that they are
off topic and all the religious discussion should end.

>This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach
>(2PD) which is described completely at:

This is a lie. The only time I have commented on the 2 pound
diet was when I responded to a direct question from Dr. Chung.

>[Dr. Chung's] 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:

But Jesus did not give of himself by maligning people, by
impugning their motives, by calling their sanity into
question, or by falsely implying they hold certain beliefs or
act in certain ways. Such behavior is inconsistent with Jesus'
methods and teachings, as well as with the Jewish tradition
from which he came.

>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:

Big red herring. I am not one who is opposed to the diet and
he has not responded to the one post I made about it, which
was an answer to his asking my opinion about it.

>These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within
>this and other discussion threads.

The rest is snipped. None of it applies to my messages.

It is very hard to discuss issues rationally when one party
habitually replies with interjections or canned (therefore
largely irrelevant) responses devoid of specifics. The
Japanese have a proverb: "like driving nails into rice bran."
I would expect more content, more logic, and better analysis
from a person who has succeeded at doctoral examinations.

This unwillingness to discuss the real issues denigrates the
opponent(s), and IMO is inconsistent with Jesus' teaching
and behavior.
--
Don donkirk@covad.net

[Carol T]

Bob <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<102kb827mtn2561@corp.supernews.com>...

>>>>>>>> It's far, far better to demonstrate the life of
>>>>>>>> Christ than
to rant
> and hawk his life as though Jesus were some used car to be
> hustled.<<<<<<<<<<<<

What was Jesus's life Bob? All He did, was, and happened to
Him? Why did He live like this and who for?

Carol T

[Carol T]

Bob <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:<102lf5gf347gl5e@corp.supernews.com>...

>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly *not* like the pilot who disturbed and
>>>>>>>>>>> scared
people with his
> irrational fanaticism. And calling non-Christians "crazy."
> Exactly *not* like that pilot.<<<<<<<<<

I believe he asked any Christian's on his flight to identify
themselves, and then he asked them to use the time wisely and
witness to their neighbours.

This sent people on the plane reaching for their mobile
phones.

What if he had asked all the Christian's on the flight to go
to the cockpit and pray with him?

Why would people have been disturbed and scared?

Carol T

[Steve]

On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 5:44:34 -0500, Carol T wrote (in message
<9bff2a56.0402130244.72302c62@posting.google.com>):

> Bob <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:<102lf5gf347gl5e@corp.supernews.com>...
>
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly *not* like the pilot who disturbed and
>>>>>>>>>>>> scared
> people with his
>> irrational fanaticism. And calling non-Christians "crazy."
>> Exactly *not* like that pilot.<<<<<<<<<
>
> I believe he asked any Christian's on his flight to identify
> themselves, and then he asked them to use the time wisely
> and witness to their neighbours.
>
> This sent people on the plane reaching for their
> mobile phones.
>
> What if he had asked all the Christian's on the flight to go
> to the cockpit and pray with him?
>
> Why would people have been disturbed and scared?

[A Clue] <- Get one. Really.

--
Steve

Weeding the Lord's Vineyards Since 2003

[Dr. Andrew]

Steve <steve@nochung.org> wrote in message
news:<0001HW.BC522084009502D6090A5DA0@library.airnews.net>...
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 5:44:34 -0500, Carol T wrote (in message
> <9bff2a56.0402130244.72302c62@posting.google.com>):
>
> > Bob <Bob@nospam.com> wrote in message
> > news:<102lf5gf347gl5e@corp.supernews.com>...
> >
> >
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Exactly *not* like the pilot who disturbed and
> >>>>>>>>>>>> scared
> people with his
> >> irrational fanaticism. And calling non-Christians
> >> "crazy." Exactly *not* like that pilot.<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > I believe he asked any Christian's on his flight to
> > identify themselves, and then he asked them to use the
> > time wisely and witness to their neighbours.
> >
> > This sent people on the plane reaching for their mobile
> > phones.
> >
> > What if he had asked all the Christian's on the flight to
> > go to the cockpit and pray with him?
> >
> > Why would people have been disturbed and scared?
>
> [A Clue] <- Get one. Really.

From you?

Now, really :-)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2CA21267

[Dr. Andrew]

Don Kirkman wrote:

> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD wrote in article
> <e61d18a67f25f58ef19465744707c308@news.teranews.com>:
>
> >Don Kirkman wrote:
>
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B.
> >> Chung, MD/PhD wrote in article
> >> <dca6fb39.0402082204.447183d9@posting.google.com>:
>
> >> [...]
>
> >> >Christ teaches as written in Matthew 5: 11"Blessed are
> >> >you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely
> >> >say all kinds of evil against you because of me.
> >> >12Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in
> >> >heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets
> >> >who were before you.
>
> >> And a few sentences before that he said "Blessed are the
> >> pure in heart, for they shall see God."
>
> >Yes. This is why it is important to have Christ in
> >your heart.
>
> And to demonstrate that in daily behavior, which is pretty
> much what "having Christ in your heart" means.

This is automatic when Christ is in your heart.

>
>
> >> "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called
> >> sons of God."
>
> >Yes. This is why it is important to walk with Christ.
>
> And to behave as he did, which is pretty much what "walking
> with Christ" means.

This is automatic when you are walking with Christ.

>
>
> >> And immediately following what you quoted he said
>
> >> "You are the salt of the earth; but if salt has lost its
> >> taste, how shall its saltness be restored? It is no
> >> longer good for anything except to be thrown out and
> >> trodden under foot by men.
>
> >Yes. This is why it is important to stay true to Christ.
>
> And to his own ethical standards.
>

This is automatic when your are true to Christ.

>
> >> "You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill
> >> cannot be hid. Nor do men light a lamp and put it under a
> >> bushel, but on a stand, and it gives light to all in the
> >> house. Let your light so shine before men, that they may
> >> see your good works and give glory to your Father who is
> >> in heaven."
>
> >Yes. This is why it is important to publicly witness for
> >Christ.
>
> Yes, instead of parroting empty phrases. Shouting and scare
> tactics are not very effective public witness.
>

God moves folks to witness in the fashion that He wants.

How you "judge" these folks is part of the testing He does to
determine how He will judge you.

>
> >> >May God add His blessings to the writing of His Word
> >> >here within SMC.
>
> >> And even more to the following of his word, since actions
> >> speak louder than words.
>
> >You may use Google to finds these actions you seek.
>
> Google has words; actions are to be seen in the way people
> treat each other in their daily lives.
>

Actions are described/communicated by words.

>
> >FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted
> >message. Because the author of the message to which I am
> >responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I
> >have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this
> >message, a few suggestions:
>
> >(1) Yell at Don
> >(2) Report Don to his ISP.
>
> And be laughed at.
>

So be it.

>
> >(3) Killfile this thread.
> >(4) Killfile me.
> >(5) Read about free speech.
>
> Which is, first, a political concept that doesn't apply to
> private behavior

Usenet is hardly private.

> and, second, what I am exercising by discussing these
> matters. However, I recognize that they are off topic and
> all the religious discussion should end.
>

If God wills it, it will end.

>
> >This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach
> >(2PD) which is described completely at:
>
> This is a lie.

Hardly.

> The only time I have commented on the 2 pound diet was
> when I responded to a direct question from Dr. Chung.
>

It remains "related." Go ahead and review the thread.

>
> >[Dr. Chung's] 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:
>
> But Jesus did not give of himself by maligning people, by
> impugning their motives, by calling their sanity into
> question, or by falsely implying they hold certain beliefs
> or act in certain ways.

Correct.

> Such behavior is inconsistent with Jesus' methods and
> teachings, as well as with the Jewish tradition from which
> he came.
>

Sinning is inconsistent with Christ's teachings and yet we
all do it.

That is why we need more that just Christ's teachings.

Is He in your heart, Don?

And if not, why not?

>
> >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:
>
> Big red herring.

I see no fish here.

> I am not one who is opposed to the diet

I did not say you were.

> and he has not responded to the one post I made about it,

Have not seen it.

> which was an answer to his asking my opinion about it.
>

Kindly repost it, here.

>
> >These debates are archived on Google in their entirety
> >within this and other discussion threads.
>
> The rest is snipped. None of it applies to my messages.
>
> It is very hard to discuss issues rationally when one party
> habitually replies with interjections or canned (therefore
> largely irrelevant) responses devoid of specifics.

Sorry you find this discussion difficult.

> The Japanese have a proverb: "like driving nails into rice
> bran." I would expect more content, more logic, and better
> analysis from a person who has succeeded at doctoral
> examinations.

I am not here to meet your expectation but to meet God's.

>
>
> This unwillingness to discuss the real issues denigrates the
> opponent(s), and IMO is inconsistent with Jesus' teaching
> and behavior.
>

Why do you see yourself as an opponent?

And why do you value His teachings more than His sacrifice?

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2CA21267

[M@Rk D.]

"Carol T" <cteasd5941@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bff2a56.0402130244.72302
>
> What if he had asked all the Christian's on the flight to go
> to the cockpit and pray with him?
>
> Why would people have been disturbed and scared?
>

Perhaps because they were seriously allergic to bullshit...?

And wrong apostrophes.

M.

[Dr. Andrew]

"M@rk D." wrote:

> "Carol T" <cteasd5941@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bff2a56.0402130244.72302
> >
> > What if he had asked all the Christian's on the flight to
> > go to the cockpit and pray with him?
> >
> > Why would people have been disturbed and scared?
> >
>
> <profanities snipped>

Sounds like you were one of those "crazy people" that the AA
pilot was referring to.

We are praying on your behalf, in Christ's name.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2CA21267

[Carol T]

"M@rk D." <M@rk.D_is-not-now-not@ho.me11.com> wrote in message
news:<z%7Xb.4895$vo1.2662@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...

> And wrong apostrophes.<<<<<<<<

It's fortunate that I am not much of a pedant. For your eyes I
will remove the slip of typing and then you will be able to
think about the outcome of the question better.

What if he had asked all the Christians on the flight to go to
the cockpit and pray with him?

Carol T

[M@Rk D.]

"Carol T" <cteasd5941@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:9bff2a56.0402131643.13736c18@posting.google.com...
> "M@rk D." <M@rk.D_is-not-now-not@ho.me11.com> wrote in
> message
news:<z%7Xb.4895$vo1.2662@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
>
>
> > And wrong apostrophes.<<<<<<<<
>
> It's fortunate that I am not much of a pedant. For your eyes
> I will remove the slip of typing and then you will be able
> to think about the outcome of the question better.
>
>
> What if he had asked all the Christians on the flight to go
> to the cockpit and pray with him?
>

I've already provided an answer, moron. But since you
obviously have mental difficulties, I'll expand it:

If he had asked all the Christians on the flight to go to the
cockpit and pray with him, then the *grown-ups* on the plane
would have been more fortunate than they were: they could have
died without having to look at a bunch of delusional idiots
while they did so.

Now, these are 'sci.med' groups, missy. Take your ludicrous
antique myths and shove them up your arse.

M.

[Dr. Andrew]

"M@rk D." wrote:

> "Carol T" <cteasd5941@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9bff2a56.0402131643.13736c18@posting.google.com...
> > "M@rk D." <M@rk.D_is-not-now-not@ho.me11.com> wrote in
> > message
> news:<z%7Xb.4895$vo1.2662@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> >
> >
> > > And wrong apostrophes.<<<<<<<<
> >
> > It's fortunate that I am not much of a pedant. For your
> > eyes I will remove the slip of typing and then you will be
> > able to think about the outcome of the question better.
> >
> >
> > What if he had asked all the Christians on the flight to
> > go to the cockpit and pray with him?
> >
>
> <profanities snipped>

You poor tortured soul.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, sometime, so
that you too will understand the meaning of mercy and grace.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?T2CA21267

[Carol T]

"M@rk D." <M@rk.D_is-not-now-not@ho.me11.com> wrote in message
news:<ToqXb.5527$cb7.42764@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they could have died without having to look
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>at a
> bunch of delusional idiots while they did so.<<<<<<<<<<<

What made you think that they were going to die?

Carol T

[Dr. Andrew]

Carol T wrote:

> "M@rk D." <M@rk.D_is-not-now-not@ho.me11.com> wrote in
> message news:<ToqXb.5527$cb7.42764@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntl-
> i.net>...
>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>they could have died without having to
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>look at a
> > bunch of delusional idiots while they did so.<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> What made you think that they were going to die?
>
> Carol T

Delusion ?

Happy heart day, Carol :-)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

** Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about? http://makeashorterlink.com/?J31722867

Is this spam? http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867