Everybody watch Chung/Mu attack Blanchard - he's the next doc Chung will try to drive out

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:28:37 -0800, [email hidden] wrote (in
part):

Quoted message said:

My best wishes to Dr Blanchard in the forthcoming attack.

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

I seem to recall getting a similar caution from you not long ago, Matt. At the time I thought
you were exaggerating the pathology here in your characterization of Chung and Mu. Oh well, live
and learn.

smn

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

Why aren't you more interested in which argument is correct rather than who is espousing it?

John

John9212112 said:

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

Why aren't you more interested in which argument is correct rather than who is espousing it?

Oh, welcome back, "John." We had you marked absent while the Chung/Mu socks were furiously typing.

Why aren't you more interested in the lying and quackery rather than which side you've chosen?

Pastorio

Stephen Nagler said:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:28:37 -0800, [email hidden] wrote (in part):

Quoted message said:

My best wishes to Dr Blanchard in the forthcoming attack.

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

I seem to recall getting a similar caution from you not long ago, Matt. At the time I thought
you were exaggerating the pathology here in your characterization of Chung and Mu. Oh well, live
and learn.

smn

Pray tell us how you were attacked?

Then tell us why you have returned for more.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

On Tue, 06 Jan 2004 06:58:54 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

On Mon, 05 Jan 2004 22:28:37 -0800, [email hidden] wrote (in part):

Quoted message said:

My best wishes to Dr Blanchard in the forthcoming attack.

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

I seem to recall getting a similar caution from you not long ago, Matt. At the time I thought
you were exaggerating the pathology here in your characterization of Chung and Mu. Oh well, live
and learn.

I guess you lived but didn't learn when you were duped by Mattilda, your new friend in TROLLING,
sci.med.cardiology into believing
Dr.Chung=Mu

Just in case you have forgotten who you are buddying up to, Stephen....

thegayread.commattbernsteinsycamore.htmlOpen ↗

mattbernsteinsycamore.compullingtaffy.htmlOpen ↗

mattbernsteinsycamore.commicrowavingpic.htmlOpen ↗

Careful, I believe he is Pulling YOUR Taffy, Stephen.

allthesky.comlunareclipse01a.htmlOpen ↗ Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.

(John9212112) said:

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

Why aren't you more interested in which argument is correct rather than who is espousing it?

A fanatic who "knows the truth" will always be CERTAIN he is "correct," no matter what. It is a
matter of belief, not verifiable facts. Facts are irrelevant.

The usual standard in science is published papers, etc. The kinds of things Matti Posts, for
example. <g>

The "who" is sometimes important as well. People can sound good to others with less knowledge, and a
review of the person by experts can often make this clear. See Quackwatch, for examples There are
many misleading things on the net. <g>.

What do YOU mean by "correct?" Published science? Matt

We have a small distraction in the attack on Patrick to again attack Stephen. Chung/Mu are following
their usual script perfectly. Here's the usual one-two response so far.

Note how "sweet" Chung appears:

Quoted message said:

Pray tell us how you were attacked?

Sounds almost saintly, doesn't it. <ggg> As if he didn't know. The picture of innocence. This is a
wonderful performance, folks. I hope you are enjoying it as much as I am. I can understand why
Stephan might not enjoy it as much, though.

Quoted message said:

Then tell us why you have returned for more.

But then he gets right to the business at hand of attacking Stephen. Note how he says there will be
more attacks on Stephen. There will be more in addition to those that have already taken place.

Mu, as usual, plays the macho bad guy:

Quoted message said:

I guess you lived but didn't learn

He's announcing the continuation of the previous attack.

Update: since Chung/Mu couldn't find any interesting dirt about Stephan, they had to make up a
completely untrue fantasy. As usual, it contains material from their checklist, in this case,
gay slurs.

Quoted message said:

when you were duped by Mattilda, your new friend in TROLLING, sci.med.cardiology into believing
Dr.Chung=Mu

Note that this tries to insult both Stephen and Matt, getting two for the price of one. <g> Matt
finds it hilarious to watch this performance, bad as it is. Certain things become funny as it
becomes clear how ridiculous it is. I hope Stephen can enjoy it as much

Quoted message said:

Just in case you have forgotten who you are buddying up to, Stephen....

Update: Mu will include this in almost every post. He seems to think if he says it enough times, it
will become true. <g> One wonders, though, about his obsession with gay topics. He seems to search
them out, and reads every detail. Perhaps it takes one to know one. <gg>

Quoted message said:

thegayread.commattbernsteinsycamore.htmlOpen ↗

mattbernsteinsycamore.compullingtaffy.htmlOpen ↗

mattbernsteinsycamore.commicrowavingpic.htmlOpen ↗

Careful, I believe he is Pulling YOUR Taffy, Stephen.

ROTFL.

By the way, who IS Matt Bernstein? You seem to know him, and I don't.

In other thread attacking Stephen, Mu says: (in 5 new posts)

Quoted message said:

Stephen, why do you always drop the Xpost to ast?

Update: one of the classic Chung/Mu attack tactics is to cross post ALL their dirt and fantasies to
any groups C/M can think of. C/M has been asked many times NOT to cross post, but they have complete
disregard for the people in the other groups. The reason they are asked to not cross post is because
the material is not relevant to the other group.

Stephen IS considerate of others and does NOT posts irrelevant information, and is attacked by
Chung/Mu for it:

Quoted message said:

Why is it then, if you have such a disdain for having your Usenet activities in front of all of
Usenet instead of cubbyholed in one Usenet group?

The concept of being nice to others is absent from the Chug/Mu mind. instead Mu asks:

Quoted message said:

What are you ashamed of, Stephen?

The themes of fear and shame permeate the Chung/Mu posts. They invoke these even when it makes no
sense, and is irrelevant. When shown it makes no sense, they "see into the hearts" of the poster and
claim to know what's there better than the person posting.

Judging from the frequency this is brought up by C/M, it would seem that Chung/Mu are the most
fearful and ashamed of anyone here. <g>

This clearly demonstrates the Chung/Mu disregard for other people.

Chung/Mu always tries to get in a bigoted remark. it is one of the things on their checklist. <g>

Quoted message said:

I don't question your damnation as a Christless Jew

The Chung/Mu attack script is going like clockwork, just as I predicted. Matt

(John9212112) said:

Quoted message said:

From: [email hidden]

Why aren't you more interested in which argument is correct rather than who is espousing it?

Hey, John, I answered you and asked another question. Afraid to reply?

"what are you afraid of?" (heard that before?) <gg> Matt

Stephen Nagler said:

I seem to recall getting a similar caution from you not long ago, Matt. At the time I thought you
were exaggerating the pathology here in your characterization of Chung and Mu.

Getting worse, it seems. Matt

Totality of Lunar Mu_n Eclipsed <[email hidden]> wrote:

< snip a few meager site URL's>

Is THAT the best you can do? You really ARE a failure, aren't you. With the skills you say you have,
I'd expect to see at least 200 sites on your list. You aren't good for much of anything, are you?

Matt

Dr. Andrew B. Chung said:

Pray tell us how you were attacked?

Ohhhhh, you sound SO innocent. A VERY good act, you should qualify for an Oscar.

Quoted message said:

Then tell us why you have returned for more.

Ahhhhh so you do know after all. Somehow I thought you might know. <g> Matt

I'll have to post for Matt, since he's out in the snow having fun.

(John9212112) said:

Quoted message said:

A fanatic who "knows the truth" will always be CERTAIN he is "correct," no matter what. It is a
matter of belief, not verifiable facts. Facts are irrelevant.

Yes, I've been noticing how Bob, Steve and you are very certain about things with no facts or even
contrary facts.

I see more backup offered by Matti, and other people, than from Chung or Mu. Perhaps you could show
some papers that Chung/Mu has offered to support their assertions. If Chung/Mu have offered more
papers than others, then they would have the weight of evidence on their side. Perhaps you could
show us where they have done this.

Quoted message said:

I'll refrain from calling you fanatics.

Your bias is becoming crystal clear. Thanks for the clarification.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The usual standard in science is published papers, etc. The kinds of things Matti Posts, for
example. <g>

That is one factor. Another is the logic and coherence of the argument.

Based on belief, no doubt. Show me some facts.

Quoted message said:

In summary, Dr. B, a non-specialist, claims that Dr. C has a fundamental misunderstanding of
something that is basic to the specialty of Dr. C. A claim like that ought to have a very high
burden of proof. But then Dr. B begins his argument by inverting the sense of a quote of Dr. C
about said subject, thus demonstrating that he is unable to read and understand a relatively simple
statement about the subject made by Dr. C. At this point, I say, "case dismissed." Dr. B has
already proven who does not know the fundamentals of the subject - himself.

Perhaps you could give us a detailed example or two. I can't recall an incident as you describe it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

The "who" is sometimes important as well. People can sound good to others with less knowledge, and
a review of the person by experts can often make this clear. See Quackwatch, for examples There
are many misleading things on the net. <g>.

And the expertise of Dr. B would be what? I suppose we can accept the assertion that he has an M.D.
But then what?

As you say, the logic and coherence of the argument, for example

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What do YOU mean by "correct?" Published science?

I think I've covered it.

A good start.

Mu2

(John9212112) said:

Quoted message said:

I'll have to post for Matt, since he's out in the snow having fun.

Call him back in, you're going to need him. <g>

Could be. I'll call him on the sat phone if needed.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I see more backup offered by Matti, and other people, than from Chung or Mu. Perhaps you could
show some papers that Chung/Mu has offered to support their assertions. If Chung/Mu have offered
more papers than others, then they would have the weight of evidence on their side. Perhaps you
could show us where they have done this.

This is USENET, not a defense by a doctoral candidate.

Of course. But he same credibility assessments apply.

Quoted message said:

Dr. Chung offers a lot of information to this group based on his training and experience.

Overall, he a negative for the group. His one liners are really not that useful, except to people
who are completely clueless about cardiology. How useful is his favorite line: "see your doctor"?

A "Cardiology for Dummies" book would be as useful as Chung. And a LOT nicer to read, too..
Chung's book would have four pages on cardiology, and 970 pages on why we have to be saved by ONLY
his dogma.

Quoted message said:

I don't expect him to provide scholarly references.

I know YOU don't. You have FAITH <g> in him. Aren't beliefs great? When the rest of us watch him for
a while, we begin to see how unreliable his beliefs are. He does NOTHING to boost his credibility,
and a lot to diminish it.

Quoted message said:

I'm grateful for the time he is able to put into this.

I'm also grateful for the utterly minuscule amount of time he has given to truly help others. I wish
it were much more. And, more preaching will ONLY diminish his ability to help. It is NOT helpful in
answering cardiology issues.

He sees help as preaching his strident dogma. Others see help as cardiology advice and information.
Chung is NOT a good match for a cardiology newsgroup. As an advice giver, he is a failure.

Quoted message said:

His expert opinions carry much more weight with me than references.

I'm sure they do. You have FAITH <g> in him. Aren't beliefs great?

Quoted message said:

Or blathering Bob's brickbats.....

They're rather good, aren't they. Bob seems to nail Chung on a regular basis.

Quoted message said:

or snide Steve's slams.

Also quite clever and funny. Well done.

Quoted message said:

I can't think of what to call yours. <g>

A window into reality, perhaps?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'll refrain from calling you fanatics.

Your bias is becoming crystal clear. Thanks for the clarification.

Yes, I am biased against fanatics, as Bob/Steve/Matt/etc say they are.

I'm glad. John/Bob/Steve/Matt/etc all see him as a fanatic.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>The usual standard in science is published papers, etc. The kinds of things Matti Posts, for
>example. <g>

That is one factor. Another is the logic and coherence of the argument.

Based on belief, no doubt. Show me some facts.

It is my opinion.

OK, I accept that you have no facts to back it up.

Quoted message said:

Is it your position that you are opposed to the use of published papers, logic and coherent
argument?

Of course not. What gave you that idea?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you could give us a detailed example or two. I can't recall an incident as you
describe it.

You could google it using author:John9212112 with search limited to the last couple of days.

If I did that, I'd get the same different view that I mentioned, would I not? That's why I asked for
clarification in detail.

Quoted message said:

As I have pointed out, Dr. B's logic and coherence are not exactly sterling in the post at issue.

I'm still not clear on the post you are referring to, but on MANY other posts, Bob's logic far
outshines Chung. He methodically goes through each point, in detail. A huge contrast to the Chung
one liners. I suppose there ARE people who fall for the "Eastern" style one line bumper stickers,
though. Are you one of them?

Mu4

[email hidden] (John9212112) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>> So it is Godless medicine vs Godly medicine, is it? Well, I

believe the latter is far more powerful. You can continue to exercise your free will to continue to
be sick if you wish, but I [want] the Great Healer to be helping my physicians. <<<<<<<<<<<

Those looking for a physical God find them in physicians who are yet to be saved. But when they let
their patient's down their doors slam shut, they have no light shining behind them then because they
are ashamed for 'themselves' not for those they serve.

Carol T

Carol T said:

[email hidden] (John9212112) wrote in message news:<20040109155422.14277.00002834@mb-
m28.aol.com>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>>>>>> So it is Godless medicine vs Godly medicine, is it? Well, I

believe the latter is far more powerful. You can continue to exercise your free will to continue
to be sick if you wish, but I [want] the Great Healer to be helping my physicians. <<<<<<<<<<<

Those looking for a physical God find them in physicians who are yet to be saved. But when they
let their patient's down their doors slam shut, they have no light shining behind them then
because they are ashamed for 'themselves' not for those they serve.

This is true.

Quoted message said:

Carol T

Thank you for your discerning comments, Carol :-)

May God continue to bless you, in Jesus' name.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Thank you for your discerning comments, Carol :-)

May God continue to bless you, in Jesus' name.

Thank you Andrew.

Carol T