francispoon said:Bob Pastorio <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
Quoted message said:Bob said:As a recent heart patient and a new reader of this group, I have
enjoyed your posts. Thank you. Keep them up.
However, I have a suggestion for dealing with critics.
The tone of this seems to assume that Chung is some innocent beset by
wolves.
Regardless who is innocent or guilty, right or wrong, good or bad....,
if each participant made an effort to avoid the 'last word', the
abominable post would just end right here.
If it were as trivial as you make it sound - just kids shouting at
each other in the schoolyard - then it's an easy call. If that were
all it's been, then everybody can settle down and have a beer
together. It isn't that.
Go look at Chung's web site. See how many names are there with
accusations and aspersions attached. See how many "testimonials" are
there from people who don't want to be there and who aren't really
endorsing his efforts and thinking.
See how shabbily he has treated sincere posters to this NG. Look at
his shameful discourse with Mozz. Likewise Dr. Blanchard. Matti
Narkia. Others who asked him questions about his 2 pound diet only to
find themselves on the receiving end of abuse, smarmy attempts at
manipulation and generally dishonorable tactics. Some have tried to
offer constructive information and Chung almost invariably finds some
reason to mock them, scorn them, trivialize them and their posts.
Matti Narkia offered more scientific data in a matter of weeks than
Chung has in toto.
It's like some uncivilized dog that has peed on all the surrounding
fence posts and who won't let any others come onto his territory
unless they do it his way. Otherwise, they're subjected to the "Chung
treatment" of interlinear response to their posts that obfuscate,
avoid, evade and otherwise create a cloud of words that serve Chung's
apparent purpose of being this big dog in a trivially small yard. He's
like a demented terrier that cannot let go and must escalate the
ugliness until it's sheer madness, all semblance of communication
irrevocably destroyed.
His religious rantings only serve to color the landscape even further.
He simultaneously claims to be a scientist and shows himself to be a
fanatical religious fundamentalist. The two are incompatible. The
scientist is, by definition, always questing for testable physical
reality. Observe a phenomenon, hypothesize about it and test it. A
constant series of examinations to arrive at a documentable, testable,
repeatable result.
Chung's diet has no such basis, neither does his religious zealotry
which he equates with "knowledge." He *believes* and that's supposed
to be enough and that's not subject to debate, questioning or support.
He's apparently incapable of seeing the difference between faith and
fact and forges ahead so frantically that he seems not to notice that
he's making the most egregious logical and definitional blunders.
Having done so and having had it shown to him, he continues to insist
that he's correct. Never once, even after some rather unarguable proof
to the contrary, has Chung conceded a point, admitted an error or
credited someone else with being right who didn't absolutely agree
with him.
He calls himself "humble" while showering scorn. While lying. While
practicing the most blatant evasions.
Chung neither turns the other cheek nor does he offer proof for his
contentions. That's failure in both his claimed realms. Couple that
with his demonstrated malice and we're left with the ethically and
morally limited husk of an educated man doing as much or more harm as
he is doing good. He has taken an oath to do no harm.
I very specifically said that if he'd leave me alone and out of his
posts, I'd do the same. He seems to want the strife and triggers it
with what a lawyer would call "fighting words." It's deliberate and
malicious. It's my own opinion that he truly believes himself clever
in his verbal wrangling. That he's somehow triumphing over dark
forces. Apparently he can't see how his actions militate against
taking him seriously.
Pastorio
Quoted message said:FP
=================
Not much could be further from the truth. And the vast
Quoted message said:preponderance of the criticism is very telling. Chung's malicious
innuendoes and shabby "diagnoses" of people's actions and motivations
also reflect either inadvertent incompetence or deliberate deceit.
Either way, it's bad stuff.
Quoted message said:IGNOR THEM!!
Establish a "kill file" for their names in your news reader. If your
reader does not have this capability, I suggest Agent at
www.forteinc.com. (I will do that if I get "flamed" for this post.)
There is no benefit in engaging in a "dialog" (unless you need to
raise your blood pressure). You cannot win a pissing contest.
Your newness means you haven't much history watching Chung do his
thing. Were it simply a matter of his being bothered by other posters
with no contribution from him, your solution would be reasonable. But
you need to see what he does. He trolls groups and excuses himself by
offering a self-forgiving definition of what a troll is. He,
astonishingly, lies with the evidence of his deceit right there in
plain sight.
Look over his web site and check his "testimonials" that are there
with no one's permission and mostly don't endorse what he's peddling
with his 2 pound diet. Look at the other pages. See about stalking.
If Chung were trying to be an honest man, there would be no
antagonism. But the evidence is irrefutable that it isn't the case.
Chung obviously believes that his dissembling is garnering "victory"
for him against some forces of evil, critics who attack him in his
martyrdom. Watching him compare himself to Christ is especially
gratuitous. Given his fanatical, fundamentalist religious zealotry,
it's hard to imagine that he isn't like that in all aspects of his life.
His combinations of smugness and satisfaction, arrogance and hubris,
deceit and evasion and a paltry scientific or evidentiary basis for
his "diet" which he relentlessly promotes create a setting wherein his
flaws, failures and faux pas became rational areas for dispute. He
offers unsubstantiated opinions as though they were documented. As
though, because he's saying them, they should be accepted
unquestioningly. He hasn't established credentials for integrity or
generosity. Certainly not for Christ-like behavior that he rants about
so often.
Pastorio
