Suggestion to Dr. Chung



On 10 Dec 2003 19:04:33 GMT, [email protected] (John9212112) wrote:

>>From: Steve [email protected]
>>"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
>>them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in=A0
>>heaven." (Mat 6:1)
>>
>
>Your apparent use of this verse seems to be to accuse Dr. Chung of appearing to
>be pious in front of this newsgroup in order to impress us. Clearly, the verse
>is talking about intent.

Chung gives us his intent:

"I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God
to a worldwide audience."

>Perhaps you mistakenly think that you are Jesus - sort of a Christ Complex?

Chung has the Christ Complex. Steve clearly does not.

>In fact, Christ wants us to walk as Christians ALL the time,

An excellent idea.

>to how our faith has changed us.

Some become religious fanatics. Would you condone the things religious
fanatics do? Is that the true religious path to follow?

>But not so that we might appear to be pious
>before other men,

Are you referring to Chung's constant "pious" remarks? Or his stated
intent?

>So how should Christians show
>their faith in "the world", i.e., outside of home and church?

Perhaps by setting good examples. Say, by not constantly preaching
off-topic religion in a newsgroup.

>Remembering why we celibrate Christmas,

A great holiday for Christians. Have a good one!
Matt
 
John9212112 wrote:

> >From: Matti Narkia [email protected]
>
> >>You don't seem to have even an elementary idea how to use Google. If you
> >>reply to a person's, say Chung's, message, that person's, e.g. Chung's,
> >>name will be in the first lines, just like John9212112 is on the third
> >>line of this message. I have had several fact based discussions with Chung
> >>which could in no way be characterized a "war".
> [...]
> >I fact most of my replies to Chung have been on-topic. Do your homework!
> [...]
> >>Additionally, even if I don't reply to Chung's message and not even
> >>mention his name, his name could still appear in my message, because I may
> >>be commenting someone else's message, who has commented Chung's message,
> >>and so on ...
>
> I'd have to read them all to sort them out. I'm not interested in doing this.
>
> >And remember (or perhaps you can't because of your poor memory) that you
> >first claimed that you hadn't seen "a single useful, on-topic post" from
> >me. Then, when challenged, you confessed that maybe you saw a post from me
> >one time with some possibly useful web references. Now you confess that
> >according to your Google search 205 of my messages in this ng did not even
> >contain the word Chung and were not related to the war against Dr. Chung.
> >And as I've just pointed out, the majority of even the remaining messages
> >is strictly on-topic. I find it extremely hard to believe that you could
> >have missed all these messages as you claimed in the beginning.
>
> Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss. I'm approaching this as
> a mildly interested but casual observer. My search was simple and was focused
> primarily on getting message counts in two categories - those that didn't
> mention Dr. Chung and those that did. Going any further than this means that I
> need to read and reread a lot of posts that I really have no interest in,
> especially the off-topic ones. I'm not going to do this. If you want to do
> this yourself and offer an explanation of my results, fine, I'll look at it.
> But I've gone as far as I'm going to go with this. If you want to drop it too,
> fine. If you want the last word, go ahead and take it. But I maintain my
> opinion that your "good" posts are at least partially covered up by your "bad"
> posts.
>
> Actually, I think it's not a bad idea to occasionally do a Google on yourself
> to see how you've been doing. My own posting record (under a different screen
> name) goes back over ten years and it's interesting to review how I've been
> doing. Looking back, there are few posts that I wish were not archived.
>
> >You have more confessing to do.
> Nope.
> >Shame on you.
> No thanks, you can keep it.
>
> Wishing you and yours a joy filled and merry Christmas,
> John

Celebrating the birth of Christ is probably the last thing on Matti's mind.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:24:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [snip]

> Celebrating the birth of Christ is probably the last thing on Matti's mind.

Aren't you the guy who is always accusing others of not being able to
read your mind or know what is in your heart?

Just want to be clear on this.

--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve

Truth Served Up 24 Hours a Day
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:42:08 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Listener,
>
>
>Matt can't help himself.
>
>He is drawn to the truth

I am glad you acknowledge that I speak the truth. That IS the truth.
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 11:47:07 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>Matt,
>
>I haven't the slightest interest in Dr. Chung's religious beliefs or
>Diet suggestions

True, they are not very noteworthy.

>I simply ignore them.

I usually do as well, but is it sometimes fun to ride the waves when
the surf's up. <g>
Matt
 
John9212112 wrote:

> >From: Steve [email protected]
> >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:35:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >(in message <[email protected]>):
> >
> >> Are you referring to the hissing from the peanut gallery?
> >
> >Chung, just a suggestion since Chunglish is your *** only *** language.
> >This is called a "mixed metaphor" and is generally frowned upon in
> >educated circles. Peanut Galleries don't hiss... they laugh.
> >
> >The original Peanut Gallery was the audience of the Howdy Doody show in
> >the 1950's. They laughed at a clown and a wooden-headed puppet, so in
> >that case, "peanut gallery" is probably an appropriate metaphor for
> >anyone observing you and Mu or you and your new Junior Chung Ranger,
> >John123456789.
> >
> >--
> >"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
> >them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in=A0
> >heaven." (Mat 6:1)
> >
> >Steve
> >
> >Helping Chung to witness since 2003
>
> Steve,
>
> Your apparent use of this verse seems to be to accuse Dr. Chung of appearing to
> be pious in front of this newsgroup in order to impress us. Clearly, the verse
> is talking about intent. But, how can you know Dr. Chung's heart? Perhaps you
> mistakenly think that you are Jesus - sort of a Christ Complex?
>
> In fact, Christ wants us to walk as Christians ALL the time, to be a witness as
> to how our faith has changed us. But not so that we might appear to be pious
> before other men, but for the glory of God. So how should Christians show
> their faith in "the world", i.e., outside of home and church? "The world"
> would have us be like them. I prefer the beginning words of an old hymn,
> "Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross."
>
> Steve, it would seem that you could profit from attending a Bible study class
> so that you could learn how to interpret these words correctly. I'm sure that
> Dr. Chung or myself would be happy to help you find a suitable class.
>
> Remembering why we celibrate Christmas,
> John

Well written, John.

Christ knows what is in my heart because He resides there.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:39:17 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >Truth distresses the untruthful.
>
> Not true in all cases.

It is in your case.

> You seem to be untruthful without any distress.

You are untruthful.

>
> See - another thing you said that is not true. And that is the truth.

I write truthfully.

>
> Why not get your tinnitus fixed?

I don't shoot animals for sport as you do.

> It might help with the hissing that
> you keep reporting to us. <g>

I don't think your committing suicide is a good idea. Every life is
important even yours.

> Sorry you have such a hearing problem.

I don't shoot animals for sport as you do.

>
> Perhaps it is hindering your comprehension too.

Your incoherence is the source of the hindrance.

> You should see a
> doctor.

My vision is also fine.

Thank you for this continued extraordinary opportunity to glorify God.


Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:01:23 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
> >them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
> >heaven." (Mat 6:1)
>
> You mean when he says:
>
> "I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God
> to a worldwide audience."
>

> <hissing snipped>

And I remain thankful :)

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

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

> 10 Dec 2003 18:05:48 GMT in article
> <[email protected]> [email protected]
> (John9212112) wrote:
>
> >>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]
> >
> >>>You don't seem to have even an elementary idea how to use Google. If you
> >>>reply to a person's, say Chung's, message, that person's, e.g. Chung's,
> >>>name will be in the first lines, just like John9212112 is on the third
> >>>line of this message. I have had several fact based discussions with Chung
> >>>which could in no way be characterized a "war".
> >[...]
> > >I fact most of my replies to Chung have been on-topic. Do your homework!
> >[...]
> > >>Additionally, even if I don't reply to Chung's message and not even
> >>>mention his name, his name could still appear in my message, because I may
> >>>be commenting someone else's message, who has commented Chung's message,
> >>>and so on ...
> >
> >I'd have to read them all to sort them out. I'm not interested in doing this.
> >
> No. Your interest is in telling lies and unsubstantiated assumptions about
> other debaters.

Is it your claim that you can see into John's heart to discern his interest?

It seems you were projecting when you accused others of having a Christ-Complex.

> Much easier, requires no effort.

Truth is much easier, Matti. You should try it sometime.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> On 10 Dec 2003 19:04:33 GMT, [email protected] (John9212112) wrote:
>
> >>From: Steve [email protected]
> >>"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
> >>them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in=A0
> >>heaven." (Mat 6:1)
> >>
> >
> >Your apparent use of this verse seems to be to accuse Dr. Chung of appearing to
> >be pious in front of this newsgroup in order to impress us. Clearly, the verse
> >is talking about intent.
>
> Chung gives us his intent:
>
> "I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God
> to a worldwide audience."
>

The purpose and intent is God's though I give thanks.

I remain thankful.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:35:59 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> >There are many forums (i.e. the Cleveland Clinic forums) where doctors
>> >offer opinion and/or advice to questions.
>>
>> True, but none of these come with a sermon. <grin>
>
>None here at SMC either.

Sorry your comprehension is so distorted.

>> Many people have
>> made it clear that they do not appreciate the quasi-religious part.
>
>Are you referring to the hissing from the peanut gallery?

You should see a doctor about your hearing. It seems to be interfering
with your comprehension.

>> It
>> is clearly off topic here. Would you agree?
>
>No.

Are you saying that religion is on-topic in a cardiology group? Are
you so ignorant of the Internet that you are unaware there are groups
that are appropriate?

>> >Of course, that's no substitute to consulting with a doctor personally
>> >- something which Dr. Chung usually suggests.
>>
>> What he usually suggests is his diet,
>
>Only when indicated.

And this is based on "consulting with a doctor personally"? Have you
actually SEEN all these people in your office?

>> even though it has no published
>> scientific basis.
>
>Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
>ones that do have >90% failure rates.

Please cite a published study that shows your diet has a better
failure rate. Otherwise, you are just making up data to sound good.

>> A good
>> doctor would suggest trying one of the many diets that DO have a
>> scientific basis, but that's NOT what he does.
>
>There is yet to be a diet clinically proven to be effective (greater than
>50%) for permanent weight loss.
>
>In my experience, the 2PD approach is effective for permanent weight loss.

Please cite a published study that shows your diet is effective for
permanent weight loss. Otherwise, you are just making up data to sound
good. If it walks like a duck, and...

>> Diets work best when
>> they are tailored for the needs of a specific individual.
>
>Diet approaches for weight loss that do not address excessive quantity of
>food intake have been scientifically shown to be ineffective for permanent
>weight loss.

This has been discussed at length here. I will NOT take your troll to
again open it up for more endless spamming by you.
Matt
 
On 10 Dec 2003 05:10:40 GMT, [email protected] (John9212112) wrote:

>>From: [email protected] (bjmpls)
>
>>ANYONE who advocates a diet based on the weight of food alone is,
>>IMHO, a quack.
>
>Help me out here. I am trying to guess the meaning of IMHO from the context.

You don't have to guess. There are several places on the net where
commonly used abbreviations are defined. They are VERY easy to find.
You really DO need to get more net experience. <g>
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:54:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [email protected]ere wrote:

[snip]

>> Why not get your tinnitus fixed?
>
> I don't shoot animals for sport as you do.
>
>> It might help with the hissing that
>> you keep reporting to us. <g>
>
> I don't think your committing suicide is a good idea. Every life is
> important even yours.
>

Whaaa???? Chung, when I said "New Material", I though it was implicit
I meant _good_ new material. Shooting Animals? Suicide? What's that
all about?

Get a grip.


--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve

Only 22 more days to witness in 2003!
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:11:39 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> <incoherent babbling snipped>

Sorry your comprehension is SO badly impaired. You should seek medical
help for this. I can arrange a good referral for you.

>Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

Is this the reason why your comprehension is so badly impaired?
Perhaps you should not be so untruthful.

>Would suggest you seek psychiatric help.

This diagnosis is based on my visit to your office?

What psychiatric help do you get? Does that person specialize in
Christ Complex?
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:17:52 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:11:39 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> [email protected]ere wrote:
>>
>>> <incoherent babbling snipped>
>>
>> Truth has this effect on the untruthful.
>>
>> Would suggest you seek psychiatric help. Let me know if you need a
>> referral, neighbor.
>
>Matt,
>
>Let me know if you plan to follow up on this... I'm thinking you, me,
>and Pastorio could get a group discount :)

Maybe even group therapy. I know a good spot in the Bahamas. <g>
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:02:35 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [snip]

> Is it your claim that you can see into John's heart to discern his interest?

However,

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:24:18 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Celebrating the birth of Christ is probably the last thing on Matti's mind.

Is it _your_ claim that you can see into Matti's heart to discern his
interest in Celebrating the Birth of Christ?

You are such a transparent fraud. You would probably be dangerous if
you had any skill :)

--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve

Exposing Chung's Hypocracy since 2003
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:31:18 -0500, [email protected]ere wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:17:52 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:11:39 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <[email protected]>):
>>
>>> [email protected]ere wrote:
>>>
>>>> <incoherent babbling snipped>
>>>
>>> Truth has this effect on the untruthful.
>>>
>>> Would suggest you seek psychiatric help. Let me know if you need a
>>> referral, neighbor.
>>
>> Matt,
>>
>> Let me know if you plan to follow up on this... I'm thinking you, me,
>> and Pastorio could get a group discount :)
>
> Maybe even group therapy. I know a good spot in the Bahamas. <g>

You mean like how when all those "altruistic" doctors take "refresher
courses" on Cruise Ships? Count me in!

Chung, you know any Psychiatristists in the Bahamas?

--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve

Truth is Simple. Wisdom takes a little longer.
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:35:59 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >> >There are many forums (i.e. the Cleveland Clinic forums) where doctors
> >> >offer opinion and/or advice to questions.
> >>
> >> True, but none of these come with a sermon. <grin>
> >
> >None here at SMC either.
>
> Sorry your comprehension is so distorted.
>

Go ahead and cite the posts that come with a sermon.

>
> >> Many people have
> >> made it clear that they do not appreciate the quasi-religious part.
> >
> >Are you referring to the hissing from the peanut gallery?
>
> You should see a doctor about your hearing.

What are you hearing that you think I should be hearing here on Usenet?

> It seems to be interfering
> with your comprehension.
>

Your incoherence is the problem.

>
> >> It
> >> is clearly off topic here. Would you agree?
> >
> >No.
>
> Are you saying that religion is on-topic in a cardiology group?

I am writing that my posts are on-topic for SMC.

> Are
> you so ignorant of the Internet that you are unaware there are groups
> that are appropriate?

Google me and get back to us with the truth.

>
>
> >> >Of course, that's no substitute to consulting with a doctor personally
> >> >- something which Dr. Chung usually suggests.
> >>
> >> What he usually suggests is his diet,
> >
> >Only when indicated.
>
> And this is based on "consulting with a doctor personally"?

This is based on the truth.

> Have you
> actually SEEN all these people in your office?

No.

Suggesting that someone ask their doctor about trying the 2PD approach does not
require my professional involvement.

>
> >> even though it has no published
> >> scientific basis.
> >
> >Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
> >ones that do have >90% failure rates.
>
> Please cite a published study that shows your diet has a better
> failure rate.

Why?

> Otherwise, you are just making up data to sound good.
>

It remains my experience.

>
> >> A good
> >> doctor would suggest trying one of the many diets that DO have a
> >> scientific basis, but that's NOT what he does.
> >
> >There is yet to be a diet clinically proven to be effective (greater than
> >50%) for permanent weight loss.
> >
> >In my experience, the 2PD approach is effective for permanent weight loss.
>
> Please cite a published study that shows your diet is effective for
> permanent weight loss.

Why?

> Otherwise, you are just making up data to sound
> good.

It remains my experience.

> If it walks like a duck, and...
>

If it looks like a peanut, and tastes like a peanut ...

>
> >> Diets work best when
> >> they are tailored for the needs of a specific individual.
> >
> >Diet approaches for weight loss that do not address excessive quantity of
> >food intake have been scientifically shown to be ineffective for permanent
> >weight loss.
>
> This has been discussed at length here.

And remains true.

> I will NOT take your troll to
> again open it up for more endless spamming by you.

Bye (wave)

>
> Matt

Poor Matt.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> On 10 Dec 2003 05:10:40 GMT, [email protected] (John9212112) wrote:
>
> >>From: [email protected] (bjmpls)
> >
> >>ANYONE who advocates a diet based on the weight of food alone is,
> >>IMHO, a quack.
> >
> >Help me out here. I am trying to guess the meaning of IMHO from the context.
>
> <desperate hissing snipped>

Poor Matt.

Humbly,

Andrew

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