Is Chung faking threads and people

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by [email protected], Sep 3, 2003.


  1. >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.
     
    Tags:


  2. JayJay

    JayJay Guest

    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 crap.



    <[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.
     
  3. Ignoramus612

    Ignoramus612 Guest

    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.
     
  4. 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 crap.
    >


    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
     
  5. 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
     
  6. Bill

    Bill Guest

    <[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
     
  7. Jim Horne

    Jim Horne Guest

    "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...
     
  8. >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 crap.


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

    Did you just HAVE to Xpost your comments?

    lol

    Hypocrite.
     
  9. 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
     
  10. 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
     
  11. JayJay

    JayJay Guest

    "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.
     
  12. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Bill" <[email protected]> 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
     
  13. Complex592

    Complex592 Guest

    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.
     
  14. Mack

    Mack Guest

    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.
     
  15. Mack

    Mack Guest

    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 crap.
    >>

    >
    >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
     
  16. 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/
     
  17. Bill

    Bill Guest

    "Mack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > prove it Dr Dung.
    >
    > you can't
    >
    >


    Why do you persist in name-calling when in only decreases your credibility?

    Bill
     
  18. 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/
     
  19. 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
     
  20. Bill wrote:

    > "Mack" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > > prove it Dr Dung.
    > >
    > > you can't
    > >
    > >

    >
    > Why do you persist in name-calling when in only decreases your credibility?
    >
    > Bill


    It's called OCD.

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