Suggestion to Dr. Chung



Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
<ad hominem attacks on a lurker snipped>
> Bwahahahahahaha


Sounds like you have gone off the deep end again.

> We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
> that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
> was. She sure disappeared fast enough.


Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
hallucination for you?

Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
year?

> > John

>
> I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."


Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.

>
> Pastorio


You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.

You also remain in my prayers. May God cure you of your obsessions
soon.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> <ad hominem attacks on a lurker snipped>
>
>>Bwahahahahahaha

>
> Sounds like you have gone off the deep end again.


Oh, my, Chung posts a snide non sequitur.

Snide, a. [orig., counterfeit, bogus from thieves' slang] sly and
malicious; as a snide remark.

Snide, n. a sly and malicious person.

E-va'-sion, n.
1. an avoiding of a duty, question, fact, etc. by deceit or cleverness.
2. the means of doing this; excuse, subterfuge, equivocation, artifice.
"Thou by evasions thy crime uncoverest more." - Milton.
Synonyms - sophistry, subterfuge, prevarication, equivocation, artifice.

>>We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
>>that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
>>was. She sure disappeared fast enough.

>
> Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
> hallucination for you?


More likely a sign of Chung's degenerating faculties? Here's the
fraudulent effluent from the Chung/Mu machine: <http://tinyurl.com/xybr>

I bet Chung can't remember "Mel Hall" because it's almost as
embarrassing as the rest of the fake posts. And, well, the real ones
too. "Mel Hall" claims to have gone to school with Mu. Six of one...

> Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
> year?


Shiitake, enokitake, crimini... Could Chung be more sleazy? Oh, wait,
it's Chung.

In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.

In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
insinuations.

>>>John

>>
>>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."

>
> Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.


This passes for wit Chez Chung.

>>Pastorio

>
> You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.


Love, n.
1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
persons.
2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of acting.
3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
opposite sex.
4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart; a
lover.
5. sexual passion or its gratification.
6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
7. in tennis, a score of zero.
8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
brotherhood that people should have for each other.

Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving, beneficence,
bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity, kindheartedness,
kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.

> You also remain in my prayers.


Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.
"And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.

> May God cure you of your obsessions
> soon.


It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this that create the
setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung a...

Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
a particular field.
2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
fraudulent practitioner.
Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender.
 
On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:06:09 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
>posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
>Team" would disappear.


This world be the single biggest improvement that could happen in this
group.

Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
Matt
 
Steve wrote:

> <snip>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
> on religion and the 2PD;


Newsflash: Your hanging around does not inhibit me.

> if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
> posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
> Team" would disappear.


Though I like having you around, neighbor. That would not be the reason for my
posting on either subject.

> It is a principle of law that you can't claim
> self defense if you started the fight.


Who's claiming self-defense?

> Not a bad principle.
>


Not relevant. Sorry.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 17:17:59 -0500, Matti Narkia wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
> > Fri, 05 Dec 2003 17:11:06 -0500 in article
> > <[email protected]> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>
> >>> Matti Narkia wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> [email protected] (John9212112) wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in
> >>>>> support of Dr.
> >>>>> Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going
> >>>>> on far
> >>>>> too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone
> >>>>> out.)
> >>>>>
> >>>> [snip]
> >>>>
> >>>>> On the other
> >>>>> hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
> >>>>> trolling team.
> >>>>>
> >>>> Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
> >>>> Chung's message as nonsense:
> >>>>
> >>>> <http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
> >>>> ( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
> >>>>
> >>>> Are you calling Chung a liar?
> >>>
> >>> Are you calling yourself a troll, Matti?
> >>
> >> This has to be the lamest post ever.
> >>
> >> <LOL>
> >>

> > Yep, pathetic. He has my pity ;-).
> >

>
> But let's all pray for him tonight.


Have no problems with that provided you are praying to the right God.

See:

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

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> > Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> > <ad hominem attacks on a lurker snipped>
> >
> >>Bwahahahahahaha

> >
> > Sounds like you have gone off the deep end again.

>
> Oh, my, Chung posts a snide non sequitur.
>
> Snide, a. [orig., counterfeit, bogus from thieves' slang] sly and
> malicious; as a snide remark.
>
> Snide, n. a sly and malicious person.
>
> E-va'-sion, n.
> 1. an avoiding of a duty, question, fact, etc. by deceit or cleverness.
> 2. the means of doing this; excuse, subterfuge, equivocation, artifice.
> "Thou by evasions thy crime uncoverest more." - Milton.
> Synonyms - sophistry, subterfuge, prevarication, equivocation, artifice.
>


Are you playing scrabble, Pastorio?

>
> >>We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
> >>that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
> >>was. She sure disappeared fast enough.

> >
> > Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
> > hallucination for you?

>
> More likely a sign of Chung's degenerating faculties? Here's the
> fraudulent effluent from the Chung/Mu machine: <http://tinyurl.com/xybr>
>


Reviewed the post. Don't know Mel Hall. Don't even know Mel's gender. Mel certainly is not a
medical school classmate of mine. Where's your source for this information (gender and medical
school education)?

Are you sure you aren't eating those mushrooms again?

>
> I bet Chung can't remember "Mel Hall" because it's almost as
> embarrassing as the rest of the fake posts.


Don't remember Mel Hall's posts as you describe them. Would definitely remember post from my
medical school classmates.

> And, well, the real ones
> too.


How do you know they are fake?

> "Mel Hall" claims to have gone to school with Mu.


Well, which is it?

You seem to be confused. First Mel is my classmate and now Mel is Mu's.

> Six of one...
>


Sounds like six too many for you. May only seem like one mushroom.

>
> > Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
> > year?

>
> Shiitake, enokitake, crimini... Could Chung be more sleazy?


Why is making observations about your behavior and eating habits sleazy?

Why are you ashamed of your habits?

> Oh, wait,
> it's Chung.
>


Yes. Not Mu.

>
> In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
> implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
>
> In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
> intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
> insinuations.
>


Back to scrabble again...

>
> >>>John
> >>
> >>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."

> >
> > Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.

>
> This passes for wit Chez Chung.
>


Time to flush the Pastorio.

>
> >>Pastorio

> >
> > You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.

>
> Love, n.
> 1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
> persons.
> 2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of acting.
> 3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
> opposite sex.
> 4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart; a
> lover.
> 5. sexual passion or its gratification.
> 6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
> 7. in tennis, a score of zero.
> 8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
> devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
> brotherhood that people should have for each other.
>


Would subscribe to the latter.

Don't forget that I have written that if I encountered you dying somewhere (ie on a cath table),
that I would not hesitate to resuscitate you. This would prove the feeling of benevolent concern I
would have for you, neighbor.

>
> Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
> 1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
> 2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
> Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving, beneficence,
> bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity, kindheartedness,
> kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.
>


My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping people with their medical
questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.

>
> > You also remain in my prayers.

>
> Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
> who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.


How do you feign a prayer?

>
> "And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.
>


So it shall.

>
> > May God cure you of your obsessions
> > soon.

>
> It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this


Who's pretending?

> that create the
> setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung a...
>


Could it be that Pastorio is growing wiser?

>
> Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
> 1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
> a particular field.
> 2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
> fraudulent practitioner.
> Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender.


Guess not:

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

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 0:38:31 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Steve wrote:
>
>> <snip>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to
>> post on religion and the 2PD;

>
> Newsflash: Your hanging around does not inhibit me.


Newsflash for Chung and anyone else who has difficulty with
comprehension: No one said or implied that it did. If it did inhibit
you, now _that_ would be a welcome Newsflash :)


--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> Bob Pastorio wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote


>>Oh, my, Chung posts a snide non sequitur.
>>
>>Snide, a. [orig., counterfeit, bogus from thieves' slang] sly and
>>malicious; as a snide remark.
>>
>>Snide, n. a sly and malicious person.
>>
>>E-va'-sion, n.
>>1. an avoiding of a duty, question, fact, etc. by deceit or cleverness.
>>2. the means of doing this; excuse, subterfuge, equivocation, artifice.
>> "Thou by evasions thy crime uncoverest more." - Milton.
>>Synonyms - sophistry, subterfuge, prevarication, equivocation, artifice.
>>

> Are you playing scrabble, Pastorio?


For Chung's convenience, I'm listing some of the words that apply to
him and his methods and style. It should demonstrate my heartfelt
concern for him and his future. Chung says it's not a contest and then
does this. Who (or what) to believe...? Could the axiom, "Actions
speak louder than words" apply?

>>>>We haven't seen a heartfelt "testimonial" like this in a while. Since
>>>>that last woman who went to medical school with Chung or whatever it
>>>>was. She sure disappeared fast enough.
>>>
>>>Don't remember that one, Pastorio. Was that an auditory or visual
>>>hallucination for you?

>>
>>More likely a sign of Chung's degenerating faculties? Here's the
>>fraudulent effluent from the Chung/Mu machine: <http://tinyurl.com/xybr>
>>

> Reviewed the post. Don't know Mel Hall. Don't even know Mel's gender. Mel certainly is not a
> medical school classmate of mine. Where's your source for this information (gender and medical
> school education)?
>
> Are you sure you aren't eating those mushrooms again?


It would seem that the often-noted poor reading capacities of Chung
have just been documented. His much-boasted ability to see "truth" is
likewise as crippled as others have shown. Perhaps he missed the
dismissive, "or whatever it was. She sure disappeared fast enough."
that marks utter disbelief.

The first sentence of the posts is: "Hello, my name is Mel Hall and I
am a graduate of the University of Tennessee Medical School."

Mel's gender is clear enough based on her reference to her "ex-husband."

>>I bet Chung can't remember "Mel Hall" because it's almost as
>>embarrassing as the rest of the fake posts.

>
> Don't remember Mel Hall's posts as you describe them. Would definitely remember post from my
> medical school classmates.
>
>>And, well, the real ones
>>too.

>
> How do you know they are fake?
>
>>"Mel Hall" claims to have gone to school with Mu.

>
> Well, which is it?


It doesn't really matter, for the sake of establishing integrity.

> You seem to be confused. First Mel is my classmate and now Mel is Mu's.
>
>>Six of one...
>>

> Sounds like six too many for you.


You and Mu are the unfortunate matching sides of a tarnished coin.
Differentiating one from the other is a needless exercise.

Another reason to bring up "Mel" is her "statistics" about what
happens when her ex, John, put people on the 2PD and tracked them.
Here's what she says:

"John has placed dozens upon dozens of his patients on the TPD."

"The numbers come to this. Over 85% had lasted on the diet for at
least six months and every one of them had lost weight and had lost
weigh on a controlled basis. No diabetic issues were reported. As of
August, 2003. John had 48 patients on the TPD (starting with slightly
over 55 if I remember correctly); in six months or less every patient
had garbaged their food scales and could accurately assess food
weights."

Even though the whole post smacks of fraud, note how she posted
numbers, fake as they might be. Mu and Chung don't even do that
claiming that it would violate patient confidentiality. Seems like
this "Mel" has no such restraints, and it's obvious why. No patients
can be identified or compromised by this. Another fraud, another
evasion, another avoidance of anything approaching the rigor of
science from Chung and Mu.

> May only seem like one mushroom.
>
>>>Are you still eating those mushrooms you wrote about earlier in the
>>>year?

>>
>>Shiitake, enokitake, crimini... Could Chung be more sleazy?

>
> Why is making observations about your behavior and eating habits sleazy?
>
> Why are you ashamed of your habits?


If the observations were even remotely truthful and considered, they
might have value. But I already gave Chung the rationale for calling
him sleazy and it seems that his "truth-finder" <heh> skills are
failing. Here, once more:

>>In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
>>implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
>>
>>In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
>>intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
>>insinuations.


He is sleazy because his insinuations are specifically intended to
denigrate while claiming neutrality and even that sanctimonious fakery
of his fundamentalist, fanatical "Chungianity" that he substitutes for
anything approaching the generosity of spirit of real christianity.

>>Oh, wait,
>>it's Chung.
>>

> Yes. Not Mu.


The difference is more apparent than real.

>>In-nu-en'-do, n. an indirect remark, gesture or reference, usually
>>implying something derogatory; hint; insinuation.
>>
>>In-sin-u-a'-tion, n. that which is insinuated; a hint; a suggestion or
>>intimation by distant allusion; as slander may be conveyed by
>>insinuations.


> Back to scrabble again...


Back to truth and clarity of definition. Back to clear elaboration of
Chung's legion frauds. Back to unavoidable boundaries.

>>>>>John
>>>>
>>>>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
>>>
>>>Perhaps we should rename them Pastorio.

>>
>>This passes for wit Chez Chung.
>>

> Time to flush the Pastorio.


Chung's X-mas wish.

>>>>Pastorio
>>>
>>>You have my heartfelt pity and my love, neighbor.

>>
>>Love, n.
>>1. a strong affection for or attachment or devotion to a person or
>>persons.
>>2. a strong liking for or interest in something; as, her love of acting.
>>3. a strong, usually passionate, affection for a person of the
>>opposite sex.
>>4. the person who is the object of such an affection; a sweetheart; a
>>lover.
>>5. sexual passion or its gratification.
>>6. (a) cupid or eros as the god of love; (b) Venus.
>>7. in tennis, a score of zero.
>>8. in theology, (a) God's benevolent concern for mankind; (b) man's
>>devout attachment to God; (c) the feeling of benevolence and
>>brotherhood that people should have for each other.
>>

> Would subscribe to the latter.


And yet, Chung's actions and words tell the real story.

> Don't forget that I have written that if I encountered you dying somewhere (ie on a cath table),
> that I would not hesitate to resuscitate you. This would prove the feeling of benevolent concern I
> would have for you, neighbor.


Nah. That's some untestable braggadocio. The history of Chung's words
say that benevolence isn't important. The words he uses and the claims
he makes and the boasts he offers say that his concern is egotistical
rather than benevolent. Once again, he lies, deliberately or because
of his mental infirmities.

That "benevolence" that will never be in a position to be seen proves
nothing; a theoretical boast. But his statement of it further proves
the accusation of his lack of honesty.

>>Be-nev'-o-lence, n.
>>1. any inclination to do good; good will; kindness; charitableness.
>>2. an act of kindness; good done; charity given; gift.
>>Synonyms - kindness, benignity, tenderness, alms-giving, beneficence,
>>bounty, charity, generosity, good will, humanity, kindheartedness,
>>kindliness, liberality, munificence, philanthropy.
>>

> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping people with their medical
> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.


Chung's denigration of others. his deliberate lying, his deliberate
swaggering, contentiousness, his inevitable dispute with anyone
offering a different opinion, his frequent use of innuendo, and his
general fraudulence and quackery mark him as a person more caught up
in his own unhealthy needs than in anything approaching altruism.

His promotion of the 2PD with all its dangerous flaws marks him as a
superficial thinker. And his recent comment about it being in the
"public domain" and therefore known to other physicians only serves to
reinforce the idea that egotism not altruism motivates him. It would
seem that he actually believes that responsible health care providers
would endorse this one-dimensional approach.

>>>You also remain in my prayers.

>>
>>Hyp'-o-crite, n. one who feigns to be what he is not; especially one
>>who pretends to be pious, virtuous, etc. without really being so.

>
> How do you feign a prayer?


Chung is so cute when he deliberately "misunderstands." Chung feigns
piety when he is actually using it as another weapon in his arsenal of
broken arrows.

>> "And the hypocrite's hope shall perish." Job viii. 13.

>
> So it shall.
>
>>>May God cure you of your obsessions
>>>soon.

>>
>>It's pretending to psychiatric "diagnoses" like this

>
> Who's pretending?


The fraud Chung is pretending to have knowledge of a medical
discipline not in his line of work.

>>that create the
>>setting to justify, almost demand, calling Chung a...
>>

> Could it be that Pastorio is growing wiser?


Pastorio continues to spotlight fraud, chicanery, innuendo, fakery,
quackery, malice and hypocrisy. Look where the light shines...

>>Quack, n. (short for quacksalver)
>>1. one who, with little skill or foundation, pretends to have skill in
>>a particular field.
>>2. an untrained pretender to medical skill he does not posses; a
>>fraudulent practitioner.
>>Synonym - charlatan, empiric, imposter, mountebank, pretender

>
> Guess not:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp


Poor Chung is wounded by the lack of respect he so richly deserves, in
his mind.

It's hilarious reading his TV lawyer words on this page. It's also
instructive how Chung tries to make words mean what they don't. And
tries to make things in context mean something else.

If it's deliberate, he's a liar. If it's because of some deficiency in
his reading or comprehension skills, it's considerably more serious.
His response to the "Mel Hall" post referred to at the top of this
note would imply that he truly can't read and understand. That has
implications for his medical practice and his patients.

De-lus'-ion, n.
1. the act of deluding; deception; a misleading of the mind.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion
4. in psychiatry, a false, persistent belief not substantiated by
sensory evidence.
synonyms - illusion, fallacy, deception, error, hallucination.

De-lu'-sive, a.
1. apt to deceive; tending to mislead; deceptive, beguiling...
2. characterized by delusion; deceptive.

> Humbly,


Hum'-ble, n.
1. having or showing a consciousness of one's defects or shortcomings;
not proud; not self-assertive; modest.
synonyms. - lowly, meek, submissive, unassuming, unobtrusive, unassuming.

Hu-mil'-i-ty, n.
1. the state or quality of being humble of mind or spirit; absence of
pride or self-assertion.
2. [pl] acts of self-abasement.

It's likewise telling that, even after being shown the sorts of
definitions that rational people employ, Chung persists in adhering to
his obviously fake self-descriptions.

Pity.

Pastorio
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:34:44 -0500, Bob Pastorio wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Even though the whole post smacks of fraud, note how she posted
> numbers, fake as they might be. Mu and Chung don't even do that
> claiming that it would violate patient confidentiality.


Actually, all the many posts in support of Chung and the success of the
2PD are compelling and eloquent by their absence.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 11:34:44 -0500, Bob Pastorio wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> My participation here and elsewhere as a cardiologist freely helping
>> people with their medical
>> questions should serve to prove that I indeed love my neighbors.


Well, Chung, I'm sorry to say it doesn't. It could just as easily
"prove" that you have adopted a marketing strategy of dispensing free
medical advice to draw people to your web site where they are solicited
to become your patients.

> If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia, please consider
> me your best option for a personal heart advocate. Check out my credentials
> and my background. Additional information is available in the protected
> sections of this web site. Email me at [email protected] to inform
> me of your interest and I may send you a temporary username and password to
> allow a preview. The more information you email, the more likely my decision
> to send you a temporary username and password. If you like what you see and
> learn from this web site and wish to confer with me about your heart, you or
> your doctor should email me privately or call my voicemail at 404-699-2780
> to schedule an appointment to see me at my *real* office.
>
> (http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp)


Would you have us believe that Google, Yahoo, Microsoft, and the myriad
of other companies offering "free services" are simply doing it because
they love their neighbors?

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> On Fri, 5 Dec 2003 11:06:09 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >if, on the other hand, Chung were to cease
> >posting (and cross posting) on religion and the 2PD, the "Trolling
> >Team" would disappear.

>
> This world be the single biggest improvement that could happen in this
> group.
>


In your opinion.

>
> Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
> truth about whatever,


Haven't made this claim. It seems that you believe there is only one
person on this planet (me) who believes in Christ.

> and thus is never wrong.


Knowing the truth does not make one a god (ie one who is never wrong).

> He can never admit when
> he is wrong, even a little bit.


Do all the time though I am not often wrong. Anyone can Google to learn
that I continue to write truthfully. Have never claimed to be perfect.
However, my boss (God) is perfect. That I am not often wrong is to His
credit and glory.

God's humble bond-servant,

Andrew

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

>Wow. "Team Trolling (TM)" is so witty. Just a dazzler of incisive
>characterization. Jeez, how come you waited so long to shine your
>bright light here, John? The group has had need of your objective
>viewpoint and clarity of expression. No, seriously...


And kudos to you for your wit as well.....

>I know what you mean. Not a single bit of information worth pondering
>since it's far outside of "modern cardiological practice" and all. No,
>seriously...


I don't know, maybe I missed something as it is usually hidden under a pile
of.....

>Damnation if I didn't find the same thing. I got fibrillations all
>over my atrium. And in my foyer and all the way across the music room,
>down the cellar steps and out the back door. No, seriously...


Ah, more wit. Thanks a lot, the group needs it.

>You're right. Why, if everybody didn't get together in some Mel's
>Diner kinda place and plot against him, there'd be no long threads.
>Chung wouldn't have to write all those cryptic and absurd epigrammatic
>trolls. Chung has no choice but to respond. It's absolutely necessary
>that he do. No, seriously...


Seems to me that an equally plausible hypothesis is that all the Team Trollers
are really you, just you, using different screen names, etc. You know, sock
puppets......sort of like how you accuse Dr. Chung and Mu of being the same
entity. So, Steve, Matti, Paul, etc, are you really just another part of Bob?


>John, very few people have brought the clarity and depth of logical
>development to this NG and I know I can speak for everyone when I say,
>Bwahahahahahaha


Hmmmmm, demonic laughter. I'm starting to worry about you. How long have you
been doing this?

>I wonder if he knows that lots of people call toilets "john."
>
>Pastorio


Actually, I was surprised to learn that the famous English plumber Mr.
Crapper's Christian name is not "John" by, rather, "Thomas." Oh, and lets not
forget that "John" is also a slang term for the customer of a prostitute.
"Bob", on the other hand, is a slang term meaning "to cut something shorter."
E.g., could we please "Bob" this interminable trolling. Or maybe Dr. Chung's
suggestion is better.

I guess I should start praying for you, too.

John
 
>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]

>>As a long time lurker here on S.M.C, I'd like to add my voice in support of

>Dr.
>>Chung and in opposition to the Team Trolling(TM) that has been going on far
>>too long by Steve, Matti, Bob P., Paul, etc. (Sorry if left anyone out.)
>>

>[snip]
>
>>On the other
>>hand, I cannot recall a single useful, on-topic post from anyone on the
>>trolling team.
>>

>Either your memory is very poor (or selective) or you've rejected this
>Chung's message as nonsense:
>
><http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3FAA762D.84FA43D1%40heartmdphd.com>
>( http://tinyurl.com/xunx )
>
>Are you calling Chung a liar?


Certainly not. I confess to having a poor memory. I also confess that maybe I
saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references. Mostly
I recall your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.

John
 
>From: Steve [email protected]

>"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>disagrees with someone else.
>
>I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.


Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.

>> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be

>off
>> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.

>
>I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
>disease that discussion of it is appropriate here.

[....]
Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
disease?

>Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
>appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
>here.
>You can't have it both ways.


I don't think you can legitimately claim that what has been going on here is
"criticism" except in its basest form. Dr. Chung has presented a rational
case for 2PD on his web site. I don't see the Trolling Team providing anything
rational at all......just a lot of Bwahahaha. If there is a rational argument
against 2PD, let's hear it. Don't bother presenting the silly arguments that
violate common sense (e.g., 2 lbs of chocolate per day, etc.) Besides, Dr.
Chung has addressed all these on his web site. Come on, give me something
rational. Surely, you can do that, can't you?

>It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
>Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
>originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
>called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?


You introduce it and then slam it. >> this assertion only makes you look to be
the fanatics.
>
>If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
>fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?


Give me a rational argument.

>If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
>on religion and the 2PD;


And why should he quit posting on 2PD? Maybe he (and others) should also quit
posting on aspirin or EKG?

And why should he quit being himself and letting his faith show. If you want
to see some REAL off-topic religion discussions, take a look at
rec.motorcycles. But at least most of these discussions are conducted in a
respectful, civil and rational manner. Unlike here.

>--
>God's Other Humble Servant


Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.

John
 
>From: [email protected]ere

>
>Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
>truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
>he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
>Matt


I don't think Dr. Chung claims any such thing. What he does is claim to be
speaking truthfully. Big difference. Not really any different than what one
is asked to do when testifying in a court of law. He is claiming to be
speaking the truth as he knows it, not an absolute truth in a logical sense. I
am also doing the same thing here. Speaking truthfully, that is. I hope you
are too. But I do wonder.....

John
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:22:44 -0500, John9212112 wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> From: [email protected]ere

>
>>
>> Next biggest is his constant claim that only HE knows the absolute
>> truth about whatever, and thus is never wrong. He can never admit when
>> he is wrong, even a little bit. <grin>
>> Matt

>
> I don't think Dr. Chung claims any such thing.


Here are two direct quotes from Chung:

> I also have the gift of vision. I know I have the gift of truth
> discernment in the same manner I know I have the gift of vision (1)



> Please do recall that I have been blessed with the gift of truth discernment
> as we have discussed earlier. (2)



There are many others in a similar vein. Similarly a little research
(rather than relying on your "memory") will reveal Chung's religious
fanaticism, proselytizing, patronization, baiting, ad hominem attacks,
obfuscation, dissembling, and outright lying on many different
subjects. It will also, by the way, reveal Matti's substantial
contributions as well as Chung's (apparently now retracted)
acknowledgement of them.

If you wish to be taken seriously, you are going to have to do a little
research. Do you know how to use google groups?

If, on the other hand, you simply wish to make up facts from what you
wish were true, then welcome to the "The Chung Team" (TM).

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

(1)
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"gift+of+truth"+group:sci.med.cardio
logy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3F6B5F8C.A0F9DB48%40heartmdphd.com&rnum=1

(2)
http://www.google.com/groups?q=+"gift+of+truth"+group:sci.med.cardio
logy&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-
8&c2coff=1&safe=off&selm=3F8F1175.A0C8C1F0%40heartmdphd.com&rnum=2
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 16:15:26 -0500, John9212112 wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> From: Steve [email protected]

>
>> "Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>> disagrees with someone else.
>>
>> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.

>
> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.


Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
definition.

>
>>> Your calling the 2PD off topic is really silly. In order for this to be

>> off
>>> topic, obesity would have to not be a serious factor in heart disease.

>>
>> I don't agree that because a topic can be somehow linked to heart
>> disease that discussion of it is appropriate here.

> [....]
> Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
> disease?


If one follows your logic, we can dispense with the whole
alt.support.diet hierarchy of groups and simply discuss them here. And
since cooking relates to food which relates to obesity which relates to
heart disease, why not collapse all the cooking and food groups into
here too.


And since genetics, smoking, how old you are, what sex you are, where
you live, your psychological makeup, etc. are also risk factors we can
collapse the related groups into here also. With a little effort we
could probably collapse the whole of usenet into sci.med.cardiology,
simplifying things for everyone tremendously.

>
>> Let's say however, arguendo, that discussion of the 2PD _is_
>> appropriate here. In that case criticism of it is also appropriate
>> here.
>> You can't have it both ways.

>
> I don't think you can legitimately claim that what has been going on here is
> "criticism" except in its basest form.


As you have shown in another thread, you are unfamiliar with "what has
been going on here". I suggest you do some googling and return when
you have some facts.

> Dr. Chung has presented a rational
> case for 2PD on his web site.


Reasonable people can disagree on what is "rational".

> I don't see the Trolling Team providing
> anything
> rational at all......just a lot of Bwahahaha. If there is a rational
> argument
> against 2PD, let's hear it.


> Don't bother presenting the silly arguments that
> violate common sense (e.g., 2 lbs of chocolate per day, etc.) Besides, Dr.
> Chung has addressed all these on his web site. Come on, give me something
> rational. Surely, you can do that, can't you?


Several people have provided extensive rational arguments. The fact
that you are unfamiliar with them does not make them any less rational.
Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
faith and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
so.

>
>> It seems to me, on the other hand, that they are mostly started by
>> Chung introducing his religious views into threads which are not
>> originally about religion. What motivation would anyone on the so
>> called "Trolling Team" have to introduce religion?

>
> You introduce it and then slam it.


You are simply wrong and cannot back this up.

>> this assertion only makes you look to

> be
> the fanatics.
>>
>> If it is legitimate for you to assert your opinion that Chung is not a
>> fanatic, why is it illegitimate for someone else to assert that he is?

>
> Give me a rational argument.


Again, rational arguments have been provided. Since you appear to be
unfamiliar with the full history of these dialogs, you are hardly in a
position to judge whether or not they were rational. However, that is
not the point I was making. You were questioning the legitimacy of our
challenging Chung, not it's rationality. It is of the nature of human
beings to disagree. If it is legitimate for one side to present their
viewpoint, it is surely legitimate for the other side to present theirs
without being accused of "trolling", no matter that the term is
misapplied.

Chung himself has said elsewhere in this thread (and in others) that he
welcomes our participation. So what's _your_ problem?


>
>> If the "Trolling Team" were to disappear, Chung would continue to post
>> on religion and the 2PD;

>
> And why should he quit posting on 2PD? Maybe he (and others) should also
> quit posting on aspirin or EKG?


There are not other usenet groups dedicated to aspirin and EKG. It is
one thing to recommend that people with heart problems lose weight. It
is something else to expound on a particular pet diet and disparge
others. The former would be an appropriate discussion in this group;
the latter would be more appropriate in one of the diet groups.

Also, if Chung had a private label aspirin which was promoted on his
website, advocating it here while disparging other brands of aspirin
would be inappropriate as would cross posting his advertisements "as a
convenience" to completely unrelated groups such as rec.arts.cooking.

And if his arguments for his private label brand of aspirin were
specious, it would also be legitimate for people to challenge him.

>
> And why should he quit being himself and letting his faith show. If you want
> to see some REAL off-topic religion discussions...


Ah, but I don't. That's the point... get it?

>> --
>> God's Other Humble Servant

>
> Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?
> Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.


It's called "parody"... you could look it up while you are googling.

If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
discussion. If you simply want to hurl accusations based on made up
"facts", you are no better than Chung and I don't plan on having
discussions with two Chungs... one is frustrating enough :) And at
this point, you are not even a good Chung.


--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
>From: Steve [email protected]

>>> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.

>>
>> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.

>
>Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
>word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
>definition.


Are you confused Steve? First you say you're unaware of a widely accepted
definition and then you criticise me for using my own. I know I confessed to a
memory deficit but maybe you need to be truthful about your own memory issues?

>> Somehow? Isn't obesity on everybody's short list of risk factors for heart
>> disease?

>
>If one follows your logic, we can dispense with the whole
>alt.support.diet hierarchy of groups and simply discuss them here. And
>since cooking relates to food which relates to obesity which relates to
>heart disease, why not collapse all the cooking and food groups into
>here too.
>
>And since genetics, smoking, how old you are, what sex you are, where
>you live, your psychological makeup, etc. are also risk factors we can
>collapse the related groups into here also. With a little effort we
>could probably collapse the whole of usenet into sci.med.cardiology,
>simplifying things for everyone tremendously.


Clearly, you're arguing ad absurdum here. To follow this line then, maybe a
better cure would be to take the discussion of 2PD to the alt.support.diet
groups. Oh, wait a minute, that's what Dr. Chung has been doing improperly,
according to Trolling Team (and others from those groups). The diet groups
don't seem to want to talk about diet. But heart patients are possibly more
motivated to seriously consider these issues. What do you think?

[...]
>Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
>but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
>faith and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
>so.


Ok, you're missing out on your big chance to try to convince of the rightness
of your position. I'll guess I have no choice but to continue thinking what I
now think. Oh well.

Ok, so you don't want to discuss it. But why do you continue wasting your time
criticising Dr. Chung with no rational basis.

>Also, if Chung had a private label aspirin which was promoted on his
>website, advocating it here while disparging other brands of aspirin
>would be inappropriate as would cross posting his advertisements "as a
>convenience" to completely unrelated groups such as rec.arts.cooking.


Is Dr. Chung selling his 2PD book here or on his site? I must have missed it.

>Ah, but I don't. That's the point... get it?


Then why don't you let go of it? It seems to me that you enjoy it. I merely
suggest that there might be better places to discuss (or not discuss) religion
since you seem to want to keep doing this.

>>> God's Other Humble Servant

>>
>> Are you claiming that God only has two humble servants? You and one other?

>
>> Hey, I'm one too. And I know lots of others besides me.

>
>It's called "parody"... you could look it up while you are googling.


Thanks for noticing my parody. ;-)

>If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
>discussion. If you simply want to hurl accusations based on made up
>"facts", you are no better than Chung and I don't plan on having
>discussions with two Chungs... one is frustrating enough :) And at
>this point, you are not even a good Chung.


No, I am not. But I can wish, I guess.
_
John
 
On Sat, 6 Dec 2003 19:07:17 -0500, John9212112 wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

>> From: Steve [email protected]

>
>>>> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.
>>>
>>> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.

>>
>> Then you have adopted Chung's Humpty-Dumpty-speak where when you use a
>> word, _you_ will choose what it means rather than adopting the common
>> definition.

>
> Are you confused Steve? First you say you're unaware of a widely accepted
> definition and then you criticise me for using my own.


Congratulations! You are well on your way to becomming a "Chungsman"...
you have mastered the technique of selectively snipping out a part of a
post in order to distort it's meaning. Let me resupply you with the
missing part:

> I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling. A
> common element of all definitions, however, seems to be an attempt to
> disrupt a group, not to simply target a specific individual or a
> specific idea. While you may not agree with the criticisms of Chung's
> 2PD or religious posts, such criticism hardly falls under common
> definitions of "trolling". A search of google, for example, will
> reveal that when Chung is not discussing either of these two ideas, he
> is pretty much left alone as is everyone else in the group.


Note how the snipped version conveniently leaves out the concepts of "a
common element of all definitions, however" and "common definitions of
trolling". This is Chungsmanship at its best. Snip the context and
then respond to the the now altered meaning.

Next, you will be praying for me.

We're done, Bucko. One Chung is one Chung too many.

>> And at
>> this point, you are not even a good Chung.

>
> No, I am not. But I can wish, I guess.


You are on your way.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
John9212112 wrote:
>>From: Steve [email protected]

>
>
>>"Trolling" is a term that is frequently bandied about whenever someone
>>disagrees with someone else.
>>
>>I am unaware of any single, widely accepted definition of trolling.

>
> Well, in my view, what you (and others) have been doing is trolling.


Nice bit of editing, fraud-boy. Snip out the fullness of it and make
up a self-serving definition. You're merely a shabby imitation of
fraud Chung. A shadow of a shadow...

Pastorio