Suggestion to Dr. Chung

Discussion in 'Health and medical' started by Bob, Nov 30, 2003.



  1. Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > <angry hissing snipped>
    >
    > Chung could refer me to a psychiatrist, he says.


    Yes, I could.

    > Because he's
    > unqualified to evaluate anything to do with psychiatry.


    Because I care about you, neighbor.

    > And in keeping
    > with his quackery, first he prescribes medicine


    If I were a quack, I would be barred from prescribing medications.

    >, then refers to a
    > trained professional who will know better what to do than he does.


    Though qualified to recognize and treat psychiatric disorders acutely
    as a state-licensed board-certified specialist in internal medicine
    (aka adult medicine), long-term follow-up and care with possibly
    internment in a psychiatric facility would be best handled by a
    psychiatrist which I am not.


    >
    > Give 'em drugs, says Chung, then ask questions.


    No need to ask in your case since you have answered the questions many
    times over. Eloquently written expressions of delusions remain proof
    of delusions.

    See:

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

    Also see Google.


    > >>Examined, he says.

    > >
    > > Yes.
    > >
    > >>Could there be a moment of less
    > >>than full truth there?

    > >
    > > No.

    >
    > So all the people Chung advises online have been examined by him?


    The answer is "yes" if you are referring to those (n = 0) who have
    received medical advice specifically tailored for their medical
    condition.

    > All
    > the advice he gives in SMC has been tailored to the specific patient
    > that he knows about from personal contact and examination?


    The answer is "yes" if you are referring to those (n = 0) who have
    received medical advice specifically tailored for their medical
    condition.

    > >> As for altruism, Chung posts so suckers will go to his web site and
    > >>sign up for medical care to enrich Chung's coffers.

    > >
    > > Would that be the reason for this post?
    > >
    > > Or is this yet another one of your delusions.

    >
    > Nice try from Chung to avoid the reality. His web site offers a way to
    > get in touch with him for the purpose of becoming a patient of his.


    Yes, it does in a manner similar to being listed in the phone-book.

    > By
    > any rational view, that's called advertising.


    Doesn't bother me what you call it. Advertising is not a sin.

    > And since he doesn't say
    > the service is free, a reasonable assumption would be that he charges
    > for his time.


    I am well compensated for the services I provide.

    > Sounds like a sales promotion program designed to make
    > Chung money.


    The HeartMDPhD.com site predates my practice so it was and is designed
    to help people.

    > To bolster a medical practice. To make money.


    See above.


    > >>That's commerce,
    > >>not altruism.

    > >
    > > Is it your claim that you can see into my heart?

    >
    > I cannot see into Chung's heart.


    Truth at last. Wasn't that easy?

    > I can see into Chung's words and
    > actions.


    Delusion.

    > Working on the principle that people don't act more honorably
    > than their core (heart) values, it's rather a simple and essentially
    > unavoidable conclusion that Chung is money-grubbing with his web site.


    It sounds eloquent but the logic is flawed.

    > Not to mention misrepresenting what others have posted online


    If anyone thought that http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp was a
    misrepresentation, they don't anymore. It has been pointed out to me
    that now that it seems clear to all that you are "psychotic" in your
    obsessive hatred toward the 2PD approach, christianity, and their
    champions, that there is less of a case for libel. Afterall, how can
    the writings of a mentally disturbed person hurt any sane person's
    reputation?

    > and
    > tried to punish people with untruths.


    Though it was not my intent, it would appear that you are being
    punished for your untruths.

    Truly, I do not judge you for I am not perfect. You have my
    forgiveness. Please do seek medical help, neighbor.

    Truly, you remain in my prayers and have my love.

    May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior before you die.


    Humble servant of Christ,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/
     
  2. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:09:58 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:11:39 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    >> <[email protected]> wrote:
    >>
    >> >[email protected] wrote:
    >> >
    >> >> <incoherent babbling snipped>

    >>
    >> <desperate hissing snipped>


    You really do need to get your hearing checked. It seems to be making
    you unable to understand even a few very clear, simple questions.

    >Poor Matt.


    Poor Chung. He is becoming more delusional by the minute. We will pray
    for you.
    Matt
     
  3. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:08:21 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] wrote:
    >
    >> On 10 Dec 2003 07:58:17 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
    >> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
    >>
    >> >Bye (wave)

    >>
    >> <desperate hissing>


    You really do need to get your hearing checked. Or is it still the
    comprehension problem?

    >Poor Matt.


    Poor Chung. He is becoming more delusional by the minute. We will pray
    for you.
    Matt
     
  4. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:07:38 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] 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>


    You really do need to get your hearing checked. It seems to be making
    you unable to understand some very simple directions.

    >Poor Matt.


    Poor Chung. He is becoming more delusional by the minute. We will pray
    for you.
    Matt
     
  5. bjmpls

    bjmpls Guest

    >
    > Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
    > ones that do have >90% failure rates.


    There is a vast difference between weight loss failure and the kind of
    "failure" that can lead to illness and/or death due to inadequate
    nutrition. That's the kind of failure the 2lb diet exposes people
    to, because it focuses on quantity alone.
    >
    > > He is the biggest spammer in the newsgroup.

    >
    > Truth be told, the biggest contributor. However, that glory belongs to God
    > :)


    The glory of posting junk science recommendations and threats belongs
    to the Almighty! What a profound and generous tribute! Hosannah!
    >
    > > 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.


    But diets such as the AHA's heart-healthy diet are at least SAFE.
    >
    > In my experience, the 2PD approach is effective for permanent weight loss.


    In your experience? If that's what you mean by "clinically proven",
    you will need to make room for Atkins, Pritikin, Ornish, etc., etc.
    >
    >
    > > 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.


    False. When it comes to weight loss, quantity alone is irrelevant.
    Calories are what count. And if anything has been "clinically
    proven", it's that one simple fact.

    Please cite the "scientific" studies that back up your claim about the
    importance of quantity alone (as opposed to calories) to food intake.
    The fact is that where quantity is a focus for weight loss, we are
    talking about calorie-dense foods. Many diets are in fact based on
    increasing the quantity of low calorie foods as a weight loss
    strategy.
     
  6. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 17:05:53 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] 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.


    As you always say: Google them. I'm sure you can do that, can't you?

    >> >> 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.


    <incoherent Chung babbling snipped>

    >> >> 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.


    As has already been noted, you can't seem to answer a simple yes/no
    question without evasion. Is the answer yes, or no?

    >> 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.


    Since you don't know, I'll take that as a yes, you so ignorant of the
    Internet that you are unaware there are groups that are appropriate.
    Since you admit you don't know, it is also the truth. <g> I speak 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.


    Your usual Chunglish evasive non-answer. <g>

    I'll take that as a no, not based on "consulting with a doctor
    personally".

    >> >> 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?


    You are just making up data to sound good. Prove it.

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

    >
    >It remains my experience.


    You are just making up data to sound good. Prove it.

    >> >> 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?


    You are just making up data to sound good. Prove it.

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

    >
    >It remains my experience.


    You are just making up data to sound good. Prove it.

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

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


    Glad to see you agree with, and confirm, the quack reasoning. <g>
    How's the duck farm?

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

    >
    >Bye (wave)


    Are you leaving? No more diet spams then?

    >Poor Matt.


    Poor Chung. He is becoming more delusional by the minute. We will pray
    for you.
    Matt
     
  7. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:58:20 -0500, [email protected]ere wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    >>>> 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?

    >
    > You are just making up data to sound good. Prove it.


    Matt, do you mean you haven't seen the thousands and thousands of posts
    here and elsewhere from the thousands and thousands of people who have
    had success with the 2PD? Why there was Mel, and Mu, and Carol
    Froelich, and the Junior Chung Ranger just to name a few... oh, and
    Chung himself. Then there was... um.... um... um... well I forget just
    this minute, but you could google it.

    Let's try to be fair here. In fact, in the spirit of Fair Play, I'll
    google it for you. What keywords would you suggest I use, Chung?

    --
    "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

    The hissing you hear is from Chung's baloon deflating.
     
  8. Don Kirkman

    Don Kirkman Guest

    It seems to me I heard somewhere that Gosia wrote in article
    <[email protected]>:

    >>Apparently he is and he has. Unbelievable, isn't it?


    >Yes. I don;t know any other doctor who gives medical advice through
    >internet.


    Advice, no, if that means diagnosing, treating, or recommending specific
    treatments. Information and suggestions, yes. You can find several
    from time to time (including one in a research hospital and one who has
    been the head of his country's rheumatological group) in
    alt.support.arthritis and one or two in rec.running, among the limited
    number of newsgroups I read.
    --
    Don
    [email protected]
     
  9. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:54:59 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >[email protected] 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.


    Not true. Prove it. Your claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
    Can't do it, can you. Chung is caught in yet another untruth.

    >> You seem to be untruthful without any distress.

    >
    >You are untruthful.


    Not true. Prove it. Your claim, so the burden of proof is on you.
    Can't do it, can you. Chung is caught in yet another untruth.

    <Chung babbling snipped>

    >> Why not get your tinnitus fixed?

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


    I don't either. What gives you that crazy idea? Your delusions are
    REALLY getting much worse!

    >I don't think your committing suicide is a good idea.


    Not my intention at all. What gives you ANOTHER crazy idea? Your
    delusions are REALLY getting much worse! I realize that is what you
    would like, but you're letting your fantasies get way out of control.

    >> Sorry you have such a hearing problem.

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


    I don't either. What gives you that crazy idea? Your delusions are
    REALLY getting much worse!

    >> You should see a
    >> doctor.

    >
    >My vision is also fine.


    I would hope so. We have established that you have auditory delusions.
    Does your therapist think your delusions have a visual component also?

    >Thank you for this continued extraordinary opportunity to glorify God.


    God is not glorified by spouting paranoid delusions on the Internet.
    It is likely an embarrassment to real Christians. We pray for your
    recovery.
    Matt
     
  10. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:02:35 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >Truth is much easier, Matti.


    Matti backs up statements with good reliable citations. A MUCH better
    gauge of truth than your unsubstantiated claims. Can't back up all
    your claims, can you? Why not admit that you just make things up.

    Truth is easy. You should try it sometime.
    Matt
     
  11. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 15:24:18 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

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


    Prove it. Or is this yet another untruth.
    Matt
     
  12. On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 19:22:14 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

    >On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:58:20 -0500, [email protected]ere wrote
    >(in message <[email protected]>):
    >
    >>>>> 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?

    >>
    >> You are just making up data to sound good. Prove it.

    >
    >Matt, do you mean you haven't seen the thousands and thousands of posts
    >here and elsewhere from the thousands and thousands of people who have
    >had success with the 2PD?


    I would settle for one scientific paper. They are very conspicuous in
    their absence. Delusions seem to be his mainstay.
    Matt
     
  13. Bob Pastorio

    Bob Pastorio Guest

    bjmpls wrote:

    >>Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
    >>ones that do have >90% failure rates.


    Excuse me for butting in here, but Chung said above (>90%) that they
    have *less than* 90% failure rates. Here's some help for the poorly
    educated Chung: "The alligator's mouth is getting ready to bite the
    larger one." For a simpleton, truth must be made as simple as possible.

    Can't write clear thoughts and doesn't know math symbols. All-around
    educated guy, huh...?

    Carry on with demonstrating how shallow he, his reasoning and his
    education are.

    Pastorio

    > There is a vast difference between weight loss failure and the kind of
    > "failure" that can lead to illness and/or death due to inadequate
    > nutrition. That's the kind of failure the 2lb diet exposes people
    > to, because it focuses on quantity alone.
    >
    >>>He is the biggest spammer in the newsgroup.

    >>
    >>Truth be told, the biggest contributor. However, that glory belongs to God
    >>:)


    > The glory of posting junk science recommendations and threats belongs
    > to the Almighty! What a profound and generous tribute! Hosannah!
    >
    >>>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.

    >
    > But diets such as the AHA's heart-healthy diet are at least SAFE.
    >
    >>In my experience, the 2PD approach is effective for permanent weight loss.

    >
    > In your experience? If that's what you mean by "clinically proven",
    > you will need to make room for Atkins, Pritikin, Ornish, etc., etc.
    >
    >>>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.

    >
    > False. When it comes to weight loss, quantity alone is irrelevant.
    > Calories are what count. And if anything has been "clinically
    > proven", it's that one simple fact.
    >
    > Please cite the "scientific" studies that back up your claim about the
    > importance of quantity alone (as opposed to calories) to food intake.
    > The fact is that where quantity is a focus for weight loss, we are
    > talking about calorie-dense foods. Many diets are in fact based on
    > increasing the quantity of low calorie foods as a weight loss
    > strategy.
     
  14. On 10 Dec 2003 15:54:38 -0800, [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote:

    >> > He is the biggest spammer in the newsgroup.

    >>
    >> Truth be told, the biggest contributor. However, that glory belongs to God
    >> :)

    >
    >The glory of posting junk science recommendations and threats belongs
    >to the Almighty! What a profound and generous tribute! Hosannah!


    He has a rather different view of what glorifies God.

    <snip several good, accurate and appropriate comments>

    Your good comments have been presented before. Be aware that he will
    use ANY opportunity to spam his diet in this group. He does this by
    "discussing" these points endlessly.

    >Please cite the "scientific" studies that back up your claim about the
    >importance of quantity alone (as opposed to calories) to food intake.


    You won't get any, but instead a constant stream of evasion and
    babble. There is NOTHING to back up his diet. Period.

    >Many diets are in fact based on
    >increasing the quantity of low calorie foods as a weight loss
    >strategy.


    Also true, especially long term, but he WILL NOT admit the truth of
    this, or even acknowledge that such diets work well.

    Beware of biting on his troll. He is a troll master, and has sucked in
    people before.
    Matt
     
  15. [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > >
    > > Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
    > > ones that do have >90% failure rates.

    >
    > There is a vast difference between weight loss failure and the kind of
    > "failure" that can lead to illness and/or death due to inadequate
    > nutrition. That's the kind of failure the 2lb diet exposes people
    > to, because it focuses on quantity alone.


    The 2PD approach addresses the only measurable (from a practical
    standpoint) variable that matters when it comes to weight loss
    success. To address concerns about *safety* (and not success or
    failure to lose weight), physician supervision is required for any
    diet approach. That is clearly spelled out in the instructions given
    at:

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

    Humbly,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com
     
  16. Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
    > On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:02:35 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    > (in message <[email protected]>):
    >
    > > Matti wrote:
    > > >No. Your interest is in telling lies and unsubstantiated
    > > >assumptions about other debaters. Much easier, requires no effort.

    >
    > > 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?


    No. That's why there's the word "probably" ...

    > <desperate hissing and muttering snipped>


    Poor Steve.

    Humbly,

    Andrew

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

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 0:02:04 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >>>
    >>> Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
    >>> ones that do have >90% failure rates.

    >>
    >> There is a vast difference between weight loss failure and the kind of
    >> "failure" that can lead to illness and/or death due to inadequate
    >> nutrition. That's the kind of failure the 2lb diet exposes people
    >> to, because it focuses on quantity alone.

    >
    > The 2PD approach addresses the only measurable (from a practical
    > standpoint) variable that matters when it comes to weight loss
    > success.


    Now I am going to have to respectfully disagree with Dr. Chung, here.
    Length is measurable and, in fact, more practical. In my experience,
    patients stay on a restricted length diet at a much greater success
    rate (> 98%) than a restricted weight diet. In case you are not
    familiar with it, let me explain:

    I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for
    Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to
    carry a scale around.

    Inspired by Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described on his
    website, in 2003, my wife and I attended an IMAX film about climbing
    the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen,
    the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less
    than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from
    starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day
    should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

    So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
    neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
    measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
    mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
    I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
    of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
    weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
    feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
    month.

    My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
    because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
    friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
    ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
    inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

    So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
    dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
    That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
    Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
    thumb to measure.

    I am making this diet available as a public service and without
    compensation.

    If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
    substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
    simpler?

    "If I have seen farther than others, it is because I have stood on the
    shoulders of midgets"

    --
    "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
     
  18. Steve

    Steve Guest

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 0:09:56 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    (in message <[email protected]>):

    > Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:<[email protected]>...
    >> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:02:35 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
    >> (in message <[email protected]>):
    >>
    >>> Matti wrote:
    >>>> No. Your interest is in telling lies and unsubstantiated
    >>>> assumptions about other debaters. Much easier, requires no effort.

    >>
    >>> 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?

    >
    > No. That's why there's the word "probably" ...
    >


    Oh, OK. I stand corrected.

    So is it your claim that you can _probably_ see into Matti's heart?

    .... and as a Bonus Question, would it be fair to say that you only have
    the Gift of Probable Truth Discernment?

    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

    The hissing you hear is Chung's baloon deflating.
     
Loading...