Suggestion to Dr. Chung



Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

Truth corrects the untruthful.

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

No.

It is my claim that I have the gift of truth discernment and not the
gift of clairvoyance.

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

No.

> Just want to be clear on this.

Speaks to your bias.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.

Poor Steve.

<angry hissing and flattering imitation snipped>

For the real thing:

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

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]

>>Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss.
>
>In discussions you have to be able to prove your claim unless you want to
>lose all your credibility (you have).

I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my opinion,
belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.

Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof? Frankly, the
last convincing proof I saw was in a college course in symbolic logic about 40
years ago. I've never seen a proof of ANYTHING at all on USENET. What a hoot!
Proofs on USENET! What a concept!

In my personal and professional life I am much more of a pragmatist. If it
works, I use it. If it doesn't work, I don't. Don't need no stinking proof.
Have you heard of the TLAR criterion? It means "That Looks About Right."

Credibility on USENET? Who cares? The credibility I care about is among my
peers, friends and loved ones. If I'm not credibile to you, just killfile me.
It won't bother me a bit. Come on, do it. Make my day.
 
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:03:53 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>> 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.
>
> Truth corrects the untruthful.
>
>> So is it your claim that you can _probably_ see into Matti's heart?
>
> No.

Is it just me, or does anyone else here get the feeling we have just
entered

** The Twilight Zone **

>
> It is my claim that I have the gift of truth discernment and not the
> gift of clairvoyance.

.... "do do de de, do do de de, do do de de....."

>
>> ... and as a Bonus Question, would it be fair to say that you only have
>> the Gift of Probable Truth Discernment?
>
> No.

You're travelling through another dimension,
a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind;
a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries
are only that of Chung's imagination.

A dimension where Truth and Untruth have interchangeable meanings.
A Parallel Universe where where the Laws of Logic are revoked.
Where wrong replaces right,
wishes replace evidence,
and where pride and arrogance replace humility as virtues.

>
>> Just want to be clear on this.
>
> Speaks to your bias.

That's the signpost up ahead...
your next stop, The Twilight Zone."


--
"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

Any hissing you hear is the sound of Chung's baloon deflating.
 
11 Dec 2003 15:38:28 GMT in article
<[email protected]> [email protected]
(John9212112) wrote:

>>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]
>
>>>Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss.
>>
>>In discussions you have to be able to prove your claim unless you want to
>>lose all your credibility (you have).
>
>I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
>like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my opinion,
>belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.
>
Before this message you have been using IMHO exactly in one message only
to redefine its meaning as "In My Hateful Opinion". Especially in the
claim debated here you did use neither IMHO nor "it seems to me". Are you
a pathological liar or is it you poor memory again?

>Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof? Frankly, the
>last convincing proof I saw was in a college course in symbolic logic about 40
>years ago. I've never seen a proof of ANYTHING at all on USENET. What a hoot!
> Proofs on USENET! What a concept!
>
In case you didn't notice this is a science newsgroup where a certain
evidence is required to back up the claims. Your hero Chung is always the
first to require proof (although he doesn't provide it himself even when
asked, but blames others for not proving his claim).

You are obviously total newcomer in usenet. I suggest that you get
familiar with netiquette and other instructions for the beginners, and
follow the discussions in the ng of your interest at least for a few
weeks, if not months, before trying to take part in discussions.

>In my personal and professional life I am much more of a pragmatist. If it
>works, I use it. If it doesn't work, I don't. Don't need no stinking proof.
>Have you heard of the TLAR criterion? It means "That Looks About Right."
>
Well, usenet is a different world and science groups have different
charters and standards than other newsgroups. Your experience of your past
life has not much validity here, that much can be concluded from your
messages.

>Credibility on USENET? Who cares? The credibility I care about is among my
>peers, friends and loved ones. If I'm not credibile to you, just killfile me.
>It won't bother me a bit. Come on, do it. Make my day.
>
You don't care about your credibility So you just came to usenet to be an
anonymous troll and troublemaker? Why don't you go and play your silly
games elsewhere?


--
Matti Narkia
 
>From: Bob Pastorio [email protected]

>>>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

Get back in your kitchen where you belong, Pastorio. You are the one who has
it bass-ackwards. Where's the rest of your team to help you out when you blow
it like this?

You could just Google it to find the definition of "greater than". The right
hand angle bracket (>) means "greater than" according to dictionary.com. (Is
this a good enough source for you?)

So, let's just break it down so even a chef can understand it. Replace the
right hand angle bracket in Dr. Chung's sentence with the words "greater than"
and you get "Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing
them. The ones that do have greater than 90% failure rates." Got it?

Thinking about "happy things" might help your mental processes to clear up.

Like,
Merry Christmas,
John
 
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 10:45:31 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>>>>> 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.

One big difference between Chung and normal people is that most
normals can admit a mistake. Chung can't. His huge ego is so fragile
it can't stand the thought of being honest, even when he is clearly
wrong. He has to wrap himself in all the delusions to keep from
falling apart. Poor Chung.

>> Truth corrects the untruthful.

Note his obsession with truth. His ego MUST keep this "I speak the
truth" delusion active, because he can't actually back up statements
he makes. Thus we end up with Chunglish. Sounds good, means nothing.

>Is it just me, or does anyone else here get the feeling we have just
>entered
>
> ** The Twilight Zone **

LOL! Paranoid delusions can seem like that. <g>

>> It is my claim that I have the gift of truth discernment and not the
>> gift of clairvoyance.

Yeah, right. <grin> Note again his obsession with truth, and how his
ego must keep this "truth" delusion going.

>... "do do de de, do do de de, do do de de....."

Nice music. Very appropriate. <g>

>>> ... and as a Bonus Question, would it be fair to say that you only have
>>> the Gift of Probable Truth Discernment?
>>
>> No.

You have to remember we are speaking Chunglish. Remember one of the
rules we learned earlier. Things are NOT what they would seem to be in
English.

Big red glass is not red glass.
Probable Truth Discernment is not truth discernment.
Truthful doctor Chung is not doctor Chung.

>You're travelling through another dimension,
>a dimension not only of sight and sound but of mind;
>a journey into a wondrous land whose boundaries
>are only that of Chung's imagination.
>
>A dimension where Truth and Untruth have interchangeable meanings.

You have to remember we are speaking Chunglish.

>A Parallel Universe where where the Laws of Logic are revoked.

You have to remember we are speaking Chunglish.

>Where wrong replaces right,

You have to remember we are speaking Chunglish.

>wishes replace evidence,
>and where pride and arrogance replace humility as virtues.

What is poor Chung to do? He gets backed into a corner repeatedly,
with NOTHING to back up his delusions. There is nothing else he can do
but generate delusions and speak Chunglish. His huge ego could NEVER
admit to a mistake. In his eyes, he can NEVER be wrong about anything.
Poor Chung.

>>> Just want to be clear on this.
>>
>> Speaks to your bias.

More Chunglish. I think it IS quite clear.
Poor Chung. He has my pity. We pray for his recovery.
Matt
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>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.
>
> Truth corrects the untruthful.

Actually, clarification "corrects" the error. No truth or untruth
involved.

>>So is it your claim that you can _probably_ see into Matti's heart?
>
> No.
>
> It is my claim that I have the gift of truth discernment and not the
> gift of clairvoyance.

Clairvoyance means "keen perception, great insight." From root words
that mean "clear" and "see" in French.

"Probably" is a word that offers room for doubt in that it suggests
it's opposite as well. A statement that includes the word "probably"
is merely offering odds, likelihoods, and certainly can't be taken as
a statement of truth.

Poor Chung contradicts himself again and shows ever more clearly his
limited capacity with English.

Pastorio
 
John9212112 wrote:

>>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]
>
>
>>>Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss.
>>
>>In discussions you have to be able to prove your claim unless you want to
>>lose all your credibility (you have).
>
> I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
> like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my opinion,
> belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.

Poor, silly "John." When you say that the group that routinely skewers
Chung with his absurdities hasn't posted anything useful, that's an
opinion. When you're shown to be hopelessly out of touch with the
reality of post quality from those people, you weasel your way into
maybe, and one post, etc. And that's another opinion. And when you're
further taken to task wherein your "opinion" is utterly demolished, it
speaks to the quality of your "opinion."

Search as I might, I haven't seem IMHO used in any of your posts as a
disclaimer.

> Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof? Frankly, the
> last convincing proof I saw was in a college course in symbolic logic about 40
> years ago. I've never seen a proof of ANYTHING at all on USENET. What a hoot!
> Proofs on USENET! What a concept!

See, for a shallow fraud who spouts and then recants, proof might be a
good thing to offer if you're going to continue farting out the
preposterous words you post here. Here's why. As you surprisingly,
correctly identify it, this is usenet. You are free to post whatever
you want. And the smarter ones are free to shove it right back up your
nose, as has happened every time, if memory serves. So, for you, it
has become a shooting gallery with you at the wrong end. Because of
the **** you post.

> In my personal and professional life I am much more of a pragmatist.

So what you do here is a simple fraud? An act? And you wonder why
you're questioned? And you wonder why you're harpooned with your own
foolish pronouncements? How silly you are, "John" to start a brawl
with people brighter than you, more articulate than you, more logical
than you and more professionally competent than you.

For the benefit of your obviously abbreviated education,
"professional" isn't what your job is, it's how you do things.

> If it
> works, I use it. If it doesn't work, I don't. Don't need no stinking proof.

<LOL> Poor "John." See if you can follow this simple line of
reasoning: If it works, it proves that it's a good idea. See, "John,"
you want proof just like a normal person with an attention span, IQ
and cranial index.

> Have you heard of the TLAR criterion? It means "That Looks About Right."

Right. The refuge of the lazy amateur or the supreme professional, but
for diametrically different reasons. In your case, your inability to
grasp the simple issue of proof defines you and, sadly, precludes your
inclusion in the latter category.

> Credibility on USENET? Who cares? The credibility I care about is among my
> peers, friends and loved ones.

So you don't really expect to be taken seriously. So your perfervid
"testimonials" for Chung are so much cotton candy? That's pretty much
what everybody has been saying, isn't it?

> If I'm not credibile to you, just killfile me.

Oh, no, "John." You're too much fun. A sluggish target who resets
after every hit, pops back up to take more hits. Retouches the paint
job so it's always nice and bright and hard to miss. What could be
better to develop low-level discourse skills?

> It won't bother me a bit. Come on, do it. Make my day.

Sorry, "John." Your day isn't that important after the show you're
putting on. It's good typing practice to reply to you, and so undemanding.

Pastorio
 
Thu, 11 Dec 2003 18:19:06 +0200 in article
<[email protected]> Matti Narkia
<[email protected]> wrote:

>11 Dec 2003 15:38:28 GMT in article
><[email protected]> [email protected]
>(John9212112) wrote:
>
>>>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]
>>
>>>>Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss.
>>>
>>>In discussions you have to be able to prove your claim unless you want to
>>>lose all your credibility (you have).
>>
>>I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
>>like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my opinion,
>>belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.
>>
>Before this message you have been using IMHO exactly in one message only
>to redefine its meaning as "In My Hateful Opinion". Especially in the
>claim debated here you did use neither IMHO nor "it seems to me". Are you
>a pathological liar or is it you poor memory again?
>
>>Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof? Frankly, the
>>last convincing proof I saw was in a college course in symbolic logic about 40
>>years ago. I've never seen a proof of ANYTHING at all on USENET. What a hoot!
>> Proofs on USENET! What a concept!
>>
>In case you didn't notice this is a science newsgroup where a certain
>evidence is required to back up the claims. Your hero Chung is always the
>first to require proof (although he doesn't provide it himself even when
>asked, but blames others for not proving his claim).

In addition John9212112 needs proof for his own protection, to make sure
that whatever he writes about other persons is true. Otherwise he could be
guilty of libel (besides bad behavior). From The American Heritage®
Dictionary:

libel
SYLLABICATION: li·bel
PRONUNCIATION: AUDIO: lbl KEY
NOUN: 1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or
pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of
presenting such material to the public.
2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at
admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.

It's a mistake to think that anything can be done without consequences
under anonymous sender name. Anonymity can and will be broken.

--
Matti Narkia
 
On 11 Dec 2003 15:38:28 GMT, [email protected] (John9212112) wrote:

>I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
>like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my opinion,
>belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.

Agreed. Perhaps you need to put in a few more IMHO flags, just to make
it a bit more clear. The brief posts may not otherwise convey the
intended message. If your intent IS clear, you will get fewer
challenges. But always a few - this IS the net. <g>

>Credibility on USENET?
>Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof?

It's not proof in the logical, absolute sense, but more like
credibility. Consider two somewhat simplified cases.

(1) Someone makes a claim. When asked REPEATEDLY what the basis is, no
scientific basis is ever produced. Other people cite published papers
saying the opposite of what was claimed.

(2) Someone makes a claim. When asked what the basis is, several
published papers are cited verifying what was claimed.

Which would you be more likely to believe?

Not perfect, but if done well, a good net discussion can be helpful.
There is so much Snake Oil, though, I prefer to have additional
verification and substantiation beyond "I know the truth". <g>
Matt
 
>From: [email protected]ere

>>I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
>>like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my
>opinion,
>>belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.
>
>Agreed. Perhaps you need to put in a few more IMHO flags, just to make
>it a bit more clear. The brief posts may not otherwise convey the
>intended message. If your intent IS clear, you will get fewer
>challenges. But always a few - this IS the net. <g>
>
>>Credibility on USENET?
>>Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof?
>
>It's not proof in the logical, absolute sense, but more like
>credibility. Consider two somewhat simplified cases.
>
>(1) Someone makes a claim. When asked REPEATEDLY what the basis is, no
>scientific basis is ever produced. Other people cite published papers
>saying the opposite of what was claimed.
>
>(2) Someone makes a claim. When asked what the basis is, several
>published papers are cited verifying what was claimed.
>
>Which would you be more likely to believe?
>
>Not perfect, but if done well, a good net discussion can be helpful.
>There is so much Snake Oil, though, I prefer to have additional
>verification and substantiation beyond "I know the truth". <g>
>Matt

Thanks for the civil tone of your reply, Matt. It is appreciated. (IMHO)

It seems to me that what passes for "proof" around here (USENET) is really just
an appeal to authority by referencing some paper from somewhere. I have been
involved in the vetting process for professional papers both as an author and a
reviewer. Additionally, I read a lot of papers published in the technical
journals in my field. I can safely say that a lot of junk gets published. So
attempting to prove a point by referencing journal articles doesn't really do
it for me. Sorry. Yes, it may add credibility but credible error isn't worth
a lot, is it? Meanwhile, we have the incredible truth.

Another kind of appeal to authority is to pay attention to what practitioners
in a field have reported. In medicine, most practicing physicians have much
too large a patient load to be able to write papers for submission to technical
journals. But if a practicing physician tells me, "out of X patients that
I've treated for Y syndrome, 98% of them were successful in the treatment I
prescribed," I'm going to pay attention. "Expert testimony." It's used as
proof in courts of law every day.

In the case of 2PD, Dr. Chung reports a pretty good level of success with this
in his practice -- good enough for me to give it a try. I can hardly hurt
myself with it - after all, the diet only requires that I eat a little less of
what I was already eating. So far, I can add my anecdotal results to his
success list. Is this proof of anything? In a strict scientific sense,
probably not. But in a practical, useful sense, it's plenty good enough for
me. Is 2PD the most optimal diet of them all? I don't know. Nor do I care.
If it works for me, that's good enough. It took 10 years to gain the pounds
I'm trying to get rid of now so I don't really need to lose it all in a month.


I think it is really sad if someone remains obese while awaiting scientific
pronouncements.

Remember the reason for the season,
John
 
John9212112 wrote:

> >From: Matti Narkia [email protected]
>
> >>Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss.
> >
> >In discussions you have to be able to prove your claim unless you want to
> >lose all your credibility (you have).
>
> I have been trying not to use "claim language" in my posts by saying things
> like, "IMHO", "it seems to me", etc to indicate that statements are my opinion,
> belief, impression, etc. These kinds of statements do not require proof.
>
> Proof, proof proof! What is this fixation you have with proof? Frankly, the
> last convincing proof I saw was in a college course in symbolic logic about 40
> years ago. I've never seen a proof of ANYTHING at all on USENET. What a hoot!
> Proofs on USENET! What a concept!
>
> In my personal and professional life I am much more of a pragmatist. If it
> works, I use it. If it doesn't work, I don't. Don't need no stinking proof.
> Have you heard of the TLAR criterion? It means "That Looks About Right."
>
> Credibility on USENET? Who cares? The credibility I care about is among my
> peers, friends and loved ones. If I'm not credibile to you, just killfile me.
> It won't bother me a bit. Come on, do it. Make my day.

Your composure makes them look bad.

Hang in there.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> <Matti losing it snipped>

Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
John9212112 wrote:

> >From: Bob Pastorio [email protected]
>
> >>>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
>
> Get back in your kitchen where you belong, Pastorio. You are the one who has
> it bass-ackwards. Where's the rest of your team to help you out when you blow
> it like this?
>
> You could just Google it to find the definition of "greater than". The right
> hand angle bracket (>) means "greater than" according to dictionary.com. (Is
> this a good enough source for you?)
>
> So, let's just break it down so even a chef can understand it. Replace the
> right hand angle bracket in Dr. Chung's sentence with the words "greater than"
> and you get "Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing
> them. The ones that do have greater than 90% failure rates." Got it?
>
> Thinking about "happy things" might help your mental processes to clear up.
>
> Like,
> Merry Christmas,
> John

Cutting back to 2 pounds of food per day might also help him think more clearly
(after he receives some psychiatric care). Would even help him lose weight as he
has admitted.

See:

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

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