Is Chung faking threads and people



O

[email protected]

Guest

>I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
>Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to make
>it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
>hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
>support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
>just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
>long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to anything
>he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
>and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
>starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.
 
Is this post an example of a "fake"?

If not - they why the hell do you think any of the other groups that are
cross posted in this thread even care? I know we don't here.

(and "here" is probably all the groups listed)

If the Sci.med.cardiology group would stop crossposting to the other groups
that don't give a rats ass about chung, or mu or anyone else in the group
then nobody except the egos of SMC would have to see all this ****.



<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> >I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
> >Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to
make
> >it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
> >hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
> >support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
> >just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
> >long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to
anything
> >he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
> >and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
> >starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.
 
I have exactly the same feelings.

i
223/182/180

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
>>Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to make
>>it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
>>hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
>>support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
>>just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
>>long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to anything
>>he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
>>and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
>>starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.
 
JayJay wrote:

> Is this post an example of a "fake"?

Wouldn't know.

>
> If not - they why the hell do you think any of the other groups that are
> cross posted in this thread even care? I know we don't here.

Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber. Perhaps you should look
amongst yourselves for the culprit.

>
> (and "here" is probably all the groups listed)
>
> If the Sci.med.cardiology group would stop crossposting to the other groups
> that don't give a rats ass about chung, or mu or anyone else in the group
> then nobody except the egos of SMC would have to see all this ****.
>

See above.

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 JayJay
(2) Report JayJay to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to vitriol regarding 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
Ignoramus612 wrote:

> I have exactly the same feelings.
>

What do the headers say?

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 Ignoramus612
(2) Report Ignoramus612 to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to anger at 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> >I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
> >Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to make
> >it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
> >hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
> >support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
> >just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
> >long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to anything
> >he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
> >and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
> >starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.

On what do you base these feelings? Do you have any facts to support these
feelings or are they just feelings? Do you dispute the issues raised in these
posts or just dismiss them because you think they might be from someone else?

Bill
 
>JayJay wrote:
>
>> Is this post an example of a "fake"?

I have no idea and neither do you.....do you?

> If not - they why the hell do you think any of the other groups that are
> cross posted in this thread even care?

Why don't you ask them?

> I know we don't here.

"We"? Since when do you represent anyone other than yourself?

Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber. Perhaps you should
look amongst yourselves for the culprit.

> If the Sci.med.cardiology group would stop crossposting to the other groups...

Unlike your deranged view of Usenet, "we" do not attempt to moderate
or control Usenet activity. But then, anyone stupid enough to torture
themselves with a boot camp done ny a misinformed and moronic personal
trainer, well, I guess that says it in spades for you, JJ.

> that don't give a rats ass about chung, or mu or anyone else in the group
> then nobody except the egos of SMC would have to see all this ****.

Speaking of egos................

Did you just HAVE to Xpost your comments?

lol

Hypocrite.
 
Jim Horne wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> :
> : Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber.
>
> how do you know they are not subscribed? because they don't post to the
> particular NG? maybe they are subscribed but only lurk...

Google:

http://tinyurl.com/m5cg

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 Jim Horne
(2) Report Jim Horne to his ISP ([email protected])
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) started about of rancor about 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

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

> Gosh Chung , it seems like everyone is against you .
>
> In a way , I feel sorry for you .
>
> tim

Sounds like you are only reading half the posts.

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 tim kettring
(2) Report tim kettring to his ISP ([email protected])
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) is related to OC behavior about 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Jim Horne wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> > :
> > : Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber.
> >
> > how do you know they are not subscribed? because they don't post to the
> > particular NG? maybe they are subscribed but only lurk...
>
> Google:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/m5cg
>


Dear Mr. Chung,

had you taken some time to look at the headers of the OP of this thread and
compared to the headers of the person you googled - you would clearly see
they are not the same. This is known as "sockpuppet" where someone is
falsly falsifying their headers in an effort to appear to be someone else.

Unfortunately somewhere, somehow, you have created a following of enemies
who are doing nothing but stirring up trouble in groups you are not even
associated with.
 
"Bill" <***@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> >
> > >I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
> > >Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to
make
> > >it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
> > >hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
> > >support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
> > >just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
> > >long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to
anything
> > >he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
> > >and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
> > >starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.
>
> On what do you base these feelings? Do you have any facts to support these
> feelings or are they just feelings? Do you dispute the issues raised in
these
> posts or just dismiss them because you think they might be from someone
else?
>
> Bill
>
>

BTW to anyone who is curious about these things there are some tools that can
give clues to the origin of posters - including Google Groups. Another is
TraceRt. In Outlook Express, for example, you go to
File/properties/details/message source and you can find that I used
67.31.2.250 as my posting host for my previous post. You can then do a tracert
on that directly or go to a site like
http://www.playground.net/products_services/body_network_traceroute.html and
have them do a traceroute for you. If you do this you can figure out that the
host I'm using is a dialup one in the NYC area and I have been posting from
that area for over a year.

So be careful making claims based on feeling, when the evidence out there
clearly contradicts this.

Bill
 
You know guys, this is not about Andrew Chung, this is not about cross posting,
this is about childish distruption. The kind a 7 year old does to interfere
with his class to get attention. This is about a few peoples need to disrupt
this news group and the people who like being a part of it. This is about
people that need to be the focus of attention all the time. This is about sad
sacks that get pleasure out of dragging down live where ever they go.

Paragraph BoB... Those of you with so much anger and hatred and distrust of
D. Chung......Why are you posting it on the newsgroup? I mean we dont need or
want to know of your OCD which was very well put. You could write, letters,
emails or even throw darts at make believe doctors hung on a wall. Why are you
making all of us honest and sincere people read thru mounds of hate mail to get
to some matter of interest in cardiology.

We each have the right to our opinion but when that starts interfering
with other peoples rights that is another story. This newsgroup is for helping
one another not tearing one another apart.

All of you, please lets just get on with science, medicine and cardiology
and save the rest for the shrinks.
 
On 03 Sep 2003 18:01:05 GMT, [email protected] wrote:

>
>
>>I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
>>Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to make
>>it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
>>hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
>>support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
>>just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
>>long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to anything
>>he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
>>and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
>>starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.


he does change his email address in his posts on a regular basis to
avoid kill files. he is now claiming that he never did, even after
people posted 3 examples of his doing so. why would anyone believe
that his claims that he doesn't post using "sock puppets" meaning he
is posting under fake names in the manner that you have pointed out
above.
 
On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:43:00 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>JayJay wrote:
>
>> Is this post an example of a "fake"?
>
>Wouldn't know.
>
>>
>> If not - they why the hell do you think any of the other groups that are
>> cross posted in this thread even care? I know we don't here.
>
>Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber. Perhaps you should look
>amongst yourselves for the culprit.


so you can prove that anyone is or is not subscribed to SMC or any
other newsgroup?

prove it Dr Dung.

you can't


>
>>
>> (and "here" is probably all the groups listed)
>>
>> If the Sci.med.cardiology group would stop crossposting to the other groups
>> that don't give a rats ass about chung, or mu or anyone else in the group
>> then nobody except the egos of SMC would have to see all this ****.
>>
>
>See above.
>
>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 JayJay
>(2) Report JayJay to his ISP
>(3) Killfile this thread.
>(4) Killfile me.
>(5) Read about free speech.
>
>This discussion(s) is related to vitriol regarding 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://tinyurl.com/levc
>
>(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.asp/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.
>
>
>Sincerely,
>
>Andrew
 
JayJay wrote:

> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > Jim Horne wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > > news:[email protected]...
> > > :
> > > : Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber.
> > >
> > > how do you know they are not subscribed? because they don't post to the
> > > particular NG? maybe they are subscribed but only lurk...
> >
> > Google:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/m5cg
> >
>
> Dear Mr. Chung,
>

Correction: Dr. Chung, (I'm sure no offense was intended)

>
> had you taken some time to look at the headers of the OP of this thread and
> compared to the headers of the person you googled - you would clearly see
> they are not the same.

Headers don't identify a person. If you compared the headers of my posts,
you'll find that they are often not the same.

> This is known as "sockpuppet" where someone is
> falsly falsifying their headers in an effort to appear to be someone else.
>

To what end? There is no evidence that anything is being falsified here.

>
> Unfortunately somewhere, somehow, you have created a following of enemies
> who are doing nothing but stirring up trouble in groups you are not even
> associated with.

Old news.

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 JayJay
(2) Report JayJay to his ISP ([email protected])
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) started from hatred toward 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

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

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

> On 03 Sep 2003 18:01:05 GMT, [email protected] wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >>I have a very strong feeling these threads to "discuss" the merits of
> >>Chun's behavior have been started by Chung himself. This is a way to make
> >>it appear that his behavior is not the point of dismissing him out of
> >>hand. It is a way to make it appear that there are several people who
> >>support him for his "good" qualities and that he has been a victim who is
> >>just misunderstood. The fact is that whatever the truth about him he has
> >>long long ago given up any reason to pay any serious attention to anything
> >>he has said. His poor character is all the reason we need to ignore him
> >>and to have to consider that he is making up these other people and
> >>starting fake threads to try to erase his shame.
>
> he does change his email address in his posts on a regular basis to
> avoid kill files.

Actually to divert "spam" and "worms."

> he is now claiming that he never did, even after
> people posted 3 examples of his doing so.

Should be easy to cite posts where I make such a claim.

> why would anyone believe
> that his claims that he doesn't post using "sock puppets" meaning he
> is posting under fake names in the manner that you have pointed out
> above.

Perhaps because to date, I've been shown to be truthful. Simply look at the
headers.

FYI Note: Because the author of the message is from an ASD subscriber, I have
added ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a
few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP ([email protected])
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) started because of obsessions regarding 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

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




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

> On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 14:43:00 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >JayJay wrote:
> >
> >> Is this post an example of a "fake"?
> >
> >Wouldn't know.
> >
> >>
> >> If not - they why the hell do you think any of the other groups that are
> >> cross posted in this thread even care? I know we don't here.
> >
> >Fyi, [email protected] is not an SCM subscriber. Perhaps you should look
> >amongst yourselves for the culprit.
>
> so you can prove that anyone is or is not subscribed to SMC or any
> other newsgroup?
>
> prove it Dr Dung.
>
> you can't

Already have.

FYI Note: Because the author of the message is from an ASD subscriber, I have added
ASD for his convenience. If you are upset about reading this message, a few
suggestions:

(1) Yell at Mack
(2) Report Mack to his ISP ([email protected])
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.

This discussion(s) started from hatred directed at 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://tinyurl.com/levc

(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.asp/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.


Sincerely,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom Back