Off Topic - Question for Christians



S

Stephen Nagler

Guest
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
>your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by your standard.
>You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man (Christian) enough
>to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
>

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

O/T -

I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people of
good heart.

If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A" has
accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a free ticket to
commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and given what has
happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble time to get an answer.

Thanks in advance for your insight.

smn
 
T

Tiger Lily

Guest
"Stephen Nagler" < wrote in message @4ax.com...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <> wrote:
>
> >Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
> >your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by your
> >standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
> >(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
> >
>
> ..................
>
> O/T -
>
> I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people
> of good heart.
>
> If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover
> copies those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God
> because "A" has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a
> free ticket to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and
> given what has happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble
> time to get an answer.
>
> Thanks in advance for your insight.
>
> smn

a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
preached to us thru his disciples

again, the behaviour of the "christian" on this site is totally disgusting and not representative of
what a TRUE christian IS

i would imagine that you are more "christian" in your G-d ly pursuits than the individual that is
being referred to here..... specifically Chung
 
S

Smoke

Guest
"Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Stephen Nagler" < wrote in message @4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <> wrote:
> >
> > >Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
> > >your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by
your
> > >standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
> > >(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
> > >
> >
> > ..................
> >
> > O/T -
> >
> > I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people
> > of good heart.
> >
> > If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
> > those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A"
> > has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a free ticket
> > to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and given what has
> > happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble time to get an
> > answer.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your insight.
> >
> > smn
>
> a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
> preached to us thru
his
> disciples
>
> again, the behaviour of the "christian" on this site is totally disgusting and not representative
> of what a TRUE christian IS

That is soooo true, try telling him that though.
>
> i would imagine that you are more "christian" in your G-d ly pursuits than the individual that is
> being referred to here..... specifically Chung

I really wonder about Chung being a christian, he just doesn't fit the mould, maybe he was left in
the oven to long.
 
D

Dr. Andrew B. C

Guest
"Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Stephen Nagler" < wrote in message @4ax.com...
> > On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <> wrote:
> >
> > >Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
> > >your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by your
> > >standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
> > >(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
> > >
> >
> > ..................
> >
> > O/T -
> >
> > I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people
> > of good heart.
> >
> > If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
> > those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A"
> > has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a free ticket
> > to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and given what has
> > happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble time to get an
> > answer.
> >
> > Thanks in advance for your insight.
> >
> > smn
>
> <hiss>

http://makeashorterlink.com/?O61725657

Truth is simple.

FYI Note:

TL is pathologically obsessed with the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His
participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of
community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious
beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound
diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument
soundly at every point:

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

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

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have
redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the
cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-
ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual
diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr.
Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example
is Mr. Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the
darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can
easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials
were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue
to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig, Steve, and Mack):

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

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the
peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557
 
T

Tiger Lily

Guest
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <> wrote in message .com...
> "Tiger Lily" <> wrote in message .uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Stephen Nagler" < wrote in message @4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to
> > > >satisfy your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by
your
> > > >standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
> > > >(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for
forgiveness?
> > > >Smoke
> > > >
> > >
> > > ..................
> > >
> > > O/T -
> > >
> > > I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T,
> > > people of good heart.
> > >
> > > If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover
> > > copies those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God
> > > because "A" has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of
> > > a free ticket to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and
> > > given what has happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble
> > > time to get an answer.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for your insight.
> > >
> > > smn
snipped part reinserted so Chung can refresh his memory

a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
preached to us thru his disciples

again, the behaviour of the "christian" on this site is totally disgusting and not representative of
what a TRUE christian IS

i would imagine that you are more "christian" in your G-d ly pursuits than the individual that is
being referred to here..... specifically Chung

>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?O61725657???????????? wtf is this.... not
even topical
>
> Truth is simple.
>
> FYI Note:
>
> TL is pathologically obsessed with the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described
> completely at:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s).

lol...... we aren't talking about your 2pd diet Chung did you lose the drift again? figures you poor
pitifully excuse for a Christian you remain in my prayers, neighbour NOT
 
S

Stephen Nagler

Guest
On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:48:16 -0700, "Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote
(in part):

>a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
>preached to us thru his disciples

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

Thanks much for your response, which I find very reassuring.

smn
 
T

Tiger Lily

Guest
"Stephen Nagler" <> wrote in message 4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Feb 2004 08:48:16 -0700, "Tiger Lily" <.com> wrote (in part):
>
>
> >a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
> >preached to us thru
his
> >disciples
>
> .................
>
> Thanks much for your response, which I find very reassuring.
>
> smn

my cousin practices/converted to ?? sp Hassidic Judaism

there are certain cultural differences (like the separate fridges, etc) but the essence of the love
of G-d and his expectations of us on earth are not very far apart at all

i find her faith to be very interesting and totally acceptable....... i truly don't understand the
debate between the 2 religions........ but then i don't understand religious debates in general as
long as people are living what their faith preaches to them

i use the term G-d out of respect for your faith
 
D

Doe

Guest
>Subject: Off Topic - Question for Christians
>From: Stephen Nagler [email protected]
>Date: 2/7/2004 5:56 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <[email protected]>
>
>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
>>your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by your standard.
>>You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man (Christian) enough
>>to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
>>
>
>..................
>
>O/T -
>
>I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people of
>good heart.
>
>If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
>those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A" has
>accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a free ticket to
>commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and given what has
>happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble time to get an answer.
>
>Thanks in advance for your insight.
>
>smn
>

If one can be positive the post is made by the person in question ..

Forgeries are rampant ..

It is wrong if it is true ..

IMHO ..

Who loves ya. Tom Jesus Was A Vegetarian! http://jesuswasavegetarian.7h.com Man Is A Herbivore!
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/manisaherbivore DEAD PEOPLE WALKING
http://pages.ivillage.com/ironjustice/deadpeoplewalking
 
L

Leerand

Guest
Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>> I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody
> else like Carol T, people of good heart.
>
> If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
> those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A" has
> accepted Jesus? > Thanks in advance for your insight.
>
> smn

The answer in a nutshell - no.

Lee <>< www.randadvertising.com
 
C

Carol T

Guest
Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>

> If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
> those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A" has
> accepted Jesus? <<<<<<<<<<<<

Dear Stephen,

A mother (A) who's daughter was attacked by a paedophile ring (B) was asked by other parents in the
town (C) how she could be so calm an collect about it all. Why didn't she want to be at the court,
why didn't she want to join in their public ranting and raving, their indignation and so forth.

Sadly, the mother knew that the paedophile's life, mind and very existence was fed by 'their'
community, and if she joined in with their condemnation of this man, she was in fact joining in with
the hate of what they were to themselves for allowing things in their town to sink so low. As they
were her neighbours, whom she loved, all that he was and allowed to be whilst they lived in the
town, the mother forgave them for.

They (C) feared for themselves, their own children's involvement, and their own inability to cope
with what had happened because they had allowed the devil to reside amongst them.

You see 'A' and her child coped because they were guided by God and their church, B ended up in
prison and by now has probably moved into some other poor child's life (the devil once he's freed
never stops his work in some people) and 'C', well, they thrive in misery, excitement, denial,
dancing with the devil's trickery, even to the point of putting their own children in to his
vicinity rather than facing their own wickedness by not allowing their children to grow up to know
God's ways.

We all face God one day and those who allow the devil to reside with them, and recognise his evil
enough to warrant public condemnation, and yet not act to save their children, will face the terror
of their ways at their end. With this knowledge parents do not have a minute to waste in saving
their children, because the Lord comes like a thief in the night, and then it is the end. This could
be your next minute to face The Lord, or it could be your next minute to save your children into
their faith.

I think if I were you I'd look to see if you've got another letter in your equation and take an
objective look at what he's up to. Division amongst people is the devil's greatest tool, it
works a treat.

"as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, in which are some things hard to
understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the
rest of the Scriptures. You therefore, beloved, since you know this beforehand, beware lest you also
fall from your own steadfastness, being led away with the error of the wicked; but grow in the grace
and knowledge of our Lord and Savoir Jesus Christ. To Him be the glory both now and forever. Amen. "
NKJ 2Peter 3:18

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives
you sort of
> a free ticket to commit incredibly odious acts. <<<<<<<<<

No, that is between a perpetrator and Jesus, if He is truly their Saviour.

However, accepting Jesus into 'your' life frees you to know that you are forgiven and can
forgive others too. You can trust Him to teach you how to feel, act and think and to see the
trickery the devil uses. All Christian's are sinners, no one is sin free who ever they are, not
you, Dr Chung or I.

As a mother I would gladly have all talk of paedophilic activity wiped off the face of the earth.
The discussion is a sin this world bears and a sin that strikes like a knife into the heart of many
parents; it is 'pure striking and searing pain'. However, all parents can chose to wear their armour
to protect themselves and their children.

The only person you need to look to for certain guidance on matters of Christianity is Jesus, and
this comes through hearing The Word of God through the Holy Spirit. Other Christian's can help in
this journey to Christ, but when their sins, perceived or otherwise, are being manipulated (perhaps
even invented) by the devil, then all someone like I can do is say that I will pray for your
protection. You and your family must be very near to God at this time, it would upset evil forces to
lose a stronghold over you, there is a lot to lose.

"I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death,
blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live; that you
may love the Lord your God, that you may obey His voice, and that you may cling to Him, for He is
your life and the length of your days; and that you may dwell in the land which the Lord swore to
your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them." " NKJ Deuteronomy 30:19-20

I pray that God will bless you and your family, each and every day.

Carol T
 
J

John

Guest
On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:56:15 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
>>your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by your standard.
>>You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man (Christian) enough
>>to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
>>
>
>..................
>
>O/T -
>
>I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people of
>good heart.
>
>If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
>those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A" has
>accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a free ticket to
>commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and given what has
>happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble time to get an answer.
>
>Thanks in advance for your insight.
>
>smn

Dr. Nagler,

I think you are totally misinterpreting things. Possibly on purpose, possibly not. I don't know.

Let's recap: "PG" cross-posts a short, ambiguous message with "N's" name mispelled as the topic.
Maybe this refers to "N", maybe not.

smc. (Sort of looks like a troll to me.) Then "C" responds to the same groups with a posting that
attempts to make the intentions of "PG" less ambiguous. "C" asks a question, "Why are you implying
that he's a pedophile?"

My question to you would be how in the world do you interpret this sequence as an accusation by
anybody of anything, except possibly that "C" is accusing "PG" of an odious accusation of "N"? Is it
ok for Jews to automatically assume someone is against them and respond with an attack? I already
know it's ok for atheists and satan worshipers to do that - their stock in trade is the lie. I am
disappointed to see a Jew joining in.

The only thing that "C" is guilty of is falling for a troll - something that many of us have been
guilty of.

John
 
S

Stephen Nagler

Guest
On 9 Feb 2004 07:47:55 -0800, [email protected] (Carol T) wrote:

>Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:<[email protected]>...
>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>
>
>> If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
>> those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A" has
>> accepted Jesus? <<<<<<<<<<<<
>
>Dear Stephen,
>
>A mother (A) who's daughter was attacked ...

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

... and your answer to my "yes or no" question is ...?

smn
 
B

Bob

Guest
John wrote:

> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:56:15 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to satisfy
>>>your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by your
>>>standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
>>>(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
>>>
>>
>>..................
>>
>>O/T -
>>
>>I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T, people
>>of good heart.
>>
>>If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover
>>copies those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God
>>because "A" has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of a
>>free ticket to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and
>>given what has happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble
>>time to get an answer.
>>
>>Thanks in advance for your insight.
>>
>>smn
>
>
> Dr. Nagler,
>
> I think you are totally misinterpreting things. Possibly on purpose, possibly not. I don't know.

You don't seem to know much, "John." Particularly you don't seem to know how to factor a consistent
pattern into ongoing conditions.

> Let's recap: "PG" cross-posts a short, ambiguous message with "N's" name mispelled as the topic.
> Maybe this refers to "N", maybe not.

See, "John," your logic dies right here. If it doesn't pertain to N, then who else would it be
about? There's no one else with a name spelled close to that.

If it *is* intended to be N, then there's no mistake about any ambiguity given the detailed
scurrilousness posted by Chung, Mu, you and others.

> smc. (Sort of looks like a troll to me.) Then "C" responds to the same groups with a posting that
> attempts to make the intentions of "PG" less ambiguous. "C" asks a question, "Why are you implying
> that he's a pedophile?"

If Chung had any history of doing anything like that, it could be considered. Given that he doesn't
and given that he says that he hasn't made up his mind about the possibility of any truth to it and
further, equates a false accusation against a doctor with pedophilia, the intent becomes rather
clear. Chung has shown no innocence of motive in dealing with Stephen. The malice he and Mu have
directed at Stephen have established the likeliest rationale for Chung's actions. Your
interpretation collapses upon even the most cursory examinations

> My question to you would be how in the world do you interpret this sequence as an accusation by
> anybody of anything, except possibly that "C" is accusing "PG" of an odious accusation of "N"?

History. Prior experience. And Chung's furtherance of the subject in secondary posts. PG didn't
directly accuse anybody of anything, but innuendo is a long-time tool of the Chung-Mu coalition.
Chung likewise doesn't directly accuse anybody of anything, but the question and subsequent comments
cast his ingenuous in very doubtful light. Chung behaves just like Chung in picking up on it and
extending it.

> Is it ok for Jews to automatically assume someone is against them and respond with an attack?

What a perfectly wonderful example of baiting. What a perfectly wonderful example of the same sort
of ugliness you try to perpetuate in your umbrage about Stephen's "mocking" your fathead beliefs.
You do exactly what you accuse others of doing. You again follow the same demented logic that says
that if people disagree with the stupid things you say, that it's an attack on some body of faith.
Is it OK for Chung to assume someone is against them and respond with an attack? Is it ok for you to
write the question above and assume someone is against them and respond with an attack?

"John," your fraudulence is as great as Chung's.

> I already know it's ok for atheists and satan worshipers to do that - their stock in trade is
> the lie.

Which is Chung, then? And Mu. They lie constantly.

> I am disappointed to see a Jew joining in.

You are a despicable phony, forgiving of foulness in your fellow all-talk travelers. You are a
shallow cultist, aggressively mounted against everyone who pinpoints your myriad flaws and fakeries.

> The only thing that "C" is guilty of is falling for a troll - something that many of us have been
> guilty of.

Puhleeze. Chung has such a long history of innocently accepting a troll when the subject is someone
he's demonstrated against as an enemy. Give it up, "John." Your self-forgiving sophistries are weak,
illogical, badly formed and, finally, unintelligently dishonest.

Bob
 
S

Stephen Nagler

Guest
On 9 Feb 2004 07:32:49 -0800, [email protected] (LeeRand) wrote:

>
>The answer in a nutshell - no.
>

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

Thank you for your straightforward answer to what I thought was a pretty straightforward question.
Appreciate it.

smn
 
D

Dr. Andrew B. C

Guest
Smoke wrote:

> "Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
> berlin.de...
> >
> > "Stephen Nagler" < wrote in message @4ax.com...
> > > On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to
> > > >satisfy your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by
> your
> > > >standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
> > > >(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for forgiveness? Smoke
> > > >
> > >
> > > ..................
> > >
> > > O/T -
> > >
> > > I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T,
> > > people of good heart.
> > >
> > > If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover
> > > copies those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God
> > > because "A" has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort of
> > > a free ticket to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on - and
> > > given what has happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a reasonble
> > > time to get an answer.
> > >
> > > Thanks in advance for your insight.
> > >
> > > smn
> >
> > a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
> > preached to us thru
> his
> > disciples
> >
> > <hiss>
>
> <hiss>
> >
> ><hiss>
>
> <hiss>

You poor guy.

You remain in my prayers, neighbor.

FYI Note:

Smoke's pathological obsessions are related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described
completely at:

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

Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His
participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of
community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious
beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched:

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

From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound
diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach
and have lost the argument soundly at every point:

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

These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s).

However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have
redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger."

Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the
cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.

These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made:

(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-
ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://makeashorterlink.com/?V5D042C47
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual
diplomas).

Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's
credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Bob
"raging and self-confident" Pastorio:

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

When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the
darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero.

Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can
easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at:

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

where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials
were bought are easily and summarily debunked.

Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue
to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):

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

and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.

It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed.

It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from
the peanut gallery.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657
 
S

Stephen Nagler

Guest
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:37:10 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 9 Feb 2004 07:47:55 -0800, [email protected] (Carol T) wrote:
>
>>Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:<[email protected]>...
>>> On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>
>>
>>> If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover copies
>>> those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God because "A"
>>> has accepted Jesus? <<<<<<<<<<<<
>>
>>Dear Stephen,
>>
>>A mother (A) who's daughter was attacked ...
>
>...............
>
>... and your answer to my "yes or no" question is ...?
>
>smn
 
J

John

Guest
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 17:39:00 GMT, Stephen Nagler <[email protected]>
wrote:

>John, it was a simple "yes or no" question.
>
>smn

I didn't (and won't) answer your question because it is a malformed question, i.e., irrelevant to
anything happening here, for the reasons I outlined in my post.

Did you read my formulation of the issue? Do you disagree with my formulation? If so, in what way?

John
 
D

Dr. Andrew B. C

Guest
"Tiger Lily" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <> wrote in message .com...
> > "Tiger Lily" <> wrote in message .uni-berlin.de>...
> > > "Stephen Nagler" < wrote in message @4ax.com...
> > > > On Sun, 08 Feb 2004 00:16:53 GMT, "Smoke" <> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > >Your attempt to label someone a paedophile shows just how low you are prepared to go to
> > > > >satisfy your own needs. It's a tactic you are well know to deploy, but this is low, even by
> your
> > > > >standard. You have no scruples doctor, you deserve all the criticism you get. Are you man
> > > > >(Christian) enough to admit to it and ask for
> forgiveness?
> > > > >Smoke
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > ..................
> > > >
> > > > O/T -
> > > >
> > > > I have a serious question for the Christians here - Carol T or anybody else like Carol T,
> > > > people of good heart.
> > > >
> > > > If "A" maliciously posts words clearly to the effect that "B" is a pedophile and moreover
> > > > copies those words to a pedophile site on the Internet ... is that OK in the eyes of God
> > > > because "A" has accepted Jesus? I guess I am asking whether accepting Jesus gives you sort
> > > > of a free ticket to commit incredibly odious acts. It's an issue I have never been clear on
> > > > - and given what has happened on this site over the past day or two, this seems to be a
> > > > reasonble time to get an answer.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks in advance for your insight.
> > > >
> > > > smn
> snipped part reinserted so Chung can refresh his memory
>
> a mans actions speak louder than his words acceptance of Jesus means living the life that Jesus
> preached to us thru his disciples
>
> again, the behaviour of the "christian" on this site is totally disgusting and not representative
> of what a TRUE christian IS
>
> i would imagine that you are more "christian" in your G-d ly pursuits than the individual that is
> being referred to here..... specifically Chung
>
>
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?O61725657???????????? wtf is this.... not
> even topical
> >
> > Truth is simple.
> >
> > FYI Note:
> >
> > TL is pathologically obsessed with the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described
> > completely at:
> >
> > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> >
> > Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s).
>
> lol...... we aren't talking about your 2pd diet Chung did you lose the drift again?

Sounds like truth struck a chord.

> figures you poor pitifully excuse for a Christian

Christ remains my personal Lord and Savior.

> you remain in my prayers, neighbour NOT

No need to worry. You had NOT convinced me you were Christian.

You poor soul.

You still remain in my prayers, neighbor.

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

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

--
Who is the humblest person in the universe?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is this all about?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?K57723657
 
S

Stephen Nagler

Guest
On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 10:48:37 -0700, John <[email protected]> wrote
(in part):

>I didn't (and won't) answer your question because it is a malformed question, i.e., irrelevant to
>anything happening here, for the reasons I outlined in my post.

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

John, the entire topic of Christianity is irrelevant to anything here on this *cardiology* site.

But at least I had the courtesy to label the subj line of my post "Off Topic."

I asked a straightforward question. I named no names. I made no accusations. I wanted to know (in
general) if from a Christian perspective it was OK in the eyes of God for a person "A" to publicly
falsely accuse another person "B" of pedophilia - just as long as "A" has accepted Jesus.

You chose not to answer. That's OK with me.

Have a great day!

smn