Suggestion to Dr. Chung



John9212112 wrote:
>>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.


But you seem perfectly willing to use it as a reference point to make
accusations.

> I also confess that maybe I
> saw a post from you one time with some possibly useful web references.


But you're either too inept, too lazy or too incompetent to check.
That, of course, is the rest of your confession.

> Mostly
> I recall


Mostly you have a bad memory, remember? Oh, of course you don't
remember. You confess you have a bad memory.

> your piling on with the other Team Trollers to attack Dr. Chung.
> Sorry to inform you that you are creating a bad impression.


John, news for you. Your impression is already one of a sycophantic
sock puppet with a poor memory and a perfect willingness to make rash
statements with no support. Might want to pray about that for a while.

Pastorio
 
John9212112 wrote:

>>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.....


If only you really knew what that means...

>>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.....


Funny how in another post you say you do distantly recall something
good. Makes you look either like a liar or rather stupid. Or a
polemicist clawing and scratching to justify and forgive Chung his
fakery and quackery. Which do you like best?

>>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?


You know, only a shitwit with no understanding of how to read headers
would say that. But, of course, it merely furthers the fraudulent
style of posting that you, Chung and Mu use.

>>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?


Demonic? No. Merely consumed with hilarity at the abject transparency
of your hero worship. So lessee, Chung worship the human body and you
worship Chung. Nice.

>>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.


Seems poetically appropriate. You, Chung and Mu. Which is which?

> "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.


And packed with all the wit you could handle.

> I guess I should start praying for you, too.


Were I you, and I'm profoundly happy I'm not, I'd worry more about the
transparency of our souls and who can see into them.

Pastorio
 
On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:51:46 -0500, Bob Pastorio <[email protected]>
wrote:

<an excellent, well documented response>

Thank you for the detailed comments. As always, the details show a
more accurate picture. Post more responses like this.
Matt
 
Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> 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.


The problem with that suggestion is that both my web site and my
presence on Usenet *predate* my cardiology practice.

> > If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,


What proportion of the world's population resides in Georgia, do you
think?

> > 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.


Thank you for proving that my website is not a marketing ploy. What
marketing program tells potential customers that they might be turned
away or there may not be a "fit" ?

> > The more information you email, the more likely my decision
> > to send you a temporary username and password.


What marketing strategy entails telling people that it is unlikely
that services or a product will be available for them?

> > 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?


Depends on whether the folks who are running those companies are
Christians.


Humbly,

Andrew

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


Thanks for proving that I have never written that *only* I know the
absolute truth.

> 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.


If your research turns up "similar" things, it should only prove I
have been similarly truthful.

> It will also, by the way, reveal Matti's substantial
> contributions as well as Chung's (apparently now retracted)
> acknowledgement of them.


Matti's posts are sometimes helpful in that they help make one aware
of contrary viewpoints. However, the anti-christian and anti-truth
bias often contaminates the contribution.

>
> 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?


Help him out by providing Google links.

> 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).


He seems to be part of Christ's team. Imho, Christ's team is the
better team for it always wins. It pays to worship the right God.

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

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


You are worshipping the wrong God, neighbor.

Be on the winning team... join Christ's team.

We welcome you :)

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:22:11 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

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

>
> The problem with that suggestion is that both my web site and my
> presence on Usenet *predate* my cardiology practice.


So you are saying you were a cardiologist who didn't practice? Hmm.
Wonder why? Or are you saying you weren't a cardiologist but posed as
one?

Whatever. The point is that you practice *now* and you solicit *now*.
I was merely pointing out that there are other possible explanations
for your participation here than the one you cite, hence your "proof"
is incomplete to say the least.

Another possible explanation, for example, is that you participate in a
misguided attempt to lure souls into your wacko fundamentalist sect.
Another is that you are lonely and bored. Another is that you are a
troll.

I'm not saying that any of these is the "real" reason, only that the
mere fact of your participation does not "prove" anything except that
you participate. Please do me the favor of not snipping parts of this
away to make it appear that I am saying something that I am not.

>
>>> If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,

>
> What proportion of the world's population resides in Georgia, do you
> think?


I dunno. What does it matter? Six Billion times a small fraction is
still more that you could probably handle alone. What fraction of all
the people who receive spam email buy something as a result? By all
accounts, a fraction of a fraction of a percent... but still enough to
make it a lucrative business.

And are you saying that you would turn away a patient who didn't live
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.

>
> Thank you for proving that my website is not a marketing ploy. What
> marketing program tells potential customers that they might be turned
> away or there may not be a "fit" ?


Well, Chung, there you go again claiming I have "proved" something. I
suppose your "logic" goes something like this:

All marketing ploys are smart
Chung's marketing ploy is dumb
Therefore, Chung's marketing ploy cannot be a marketing ploy.

Newsflash (I know you like them): All marketing ploys are not smart.
Bzzt! Syllogism breaks.

>
>>> The more information you email, the more likely my decision
>>> to send you a temporary username and password.

>
> What marketing strategy entails telling people that it is unlikely
> that services or a product will be available for them?


Newsflash: Many "marketing strategies" "qualify the customer" up front
to winnow out tire kickers, people without medical insurance, cranks,
chefs, Ethics Board Investigators, law enforcement agents, etc.

So it is not remarkable at all that one might turn away customers who
aren't fit. Next question?

BTW, I will grant you that you are not a marketing genius if that is
any consolation :) But what is at issue here is intent, not results.

>
>>> 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?

>
> Depends on whether the folks who are running those companies are
> Christians.


OK. Let me see if I follow that... I'm still learning Chungspeak, you
know :)

If the folks running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,
et al are Christians
Then they run these free web sites because they
love their neighbors.

Ergo, by logic, we must conclude that

If these web sites are not run by the folks at Google,
Yahoo, Microsoft, et al because they love their neighbors
Then they cannot be Christians.

Is that about the size of what you are saying?

Always good to have these little chats with you, Brother :)

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:07:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

< more of the usual snipped to spare everyone the agony>

> Be on the winning team... join Christ's team.
>


It's on my list of "things to do". Will I need a password?

--
God's Other Humble Servant

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


He appears to be writing truthfully.

Truth is called Humpty-Dumpty-speak by the untruthful.

> >>> 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.


Folks on diets that fail need "support."

Folks on the 2PD approach don't fail.

> 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.


Obsessions with cooking and food contributes to obesity. Pointing
that out is certainly appropriate here in SMC but would raise the ire
of Pastorio and his ilk in the cooking and food Usenet groups.

>
> 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.


They certainly can be discussed here in the context of cardiac risk
factors. Discussing smoking cessation as it relates to heart disease
is certainly on-topic here.

> With a little effort we
> could probably collapse the whole of usenet into sci.med.cardiology,
> simplifying things for everyone tremendously.


Being as I have not appointed myself to be a Usenet cop as you have,
Steve, you won't see me turning anyone away. Even libelers like
Pastorio are welcome here. Note that he and I are having a civil
discussion about saturated fats in the adjoining thread despite his
hatred of me and the 2PD approach.

> >
> >> 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.


John has written that he has been lurking for a while. Googling would
only serve to refresh his memory.

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

>
> Reasonable people can disagree on what is "rational".


Irrational people can sound reasonable.

> > 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.


Well, Steve?

> > 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.


All debunked.

See:

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


> The fact
> that you are unfamiliar with them does not make them any less rational.


Given he's been lurking, he probably seen them firsthand. You may
provide Google links to refresh his memory if you choose.

> Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,


Why not you?

Don't you know how to use Google?

> but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
> faith


The untruthful are blind to the truth.

> and/or industriousness that I am not going to waste my time doing
> so.


A quick google check on the Steve [email protected] combination would
reveal that you have been wasting your time with being untruthful for
a long time.

> >
> >> 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.


I suspect he can.

> >> 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.


See above.

> 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.


Given that he reports being a lurker for a long time, it would appear
that he is familar with the full history.

> However, that is
> not the point I was making.


That's is Steve-speak for "you got me but I will not surrender."

> 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.


Why do you care about being called a "Troll," Steve?

It did not seem to bother you before.

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


It would appear that John's original post did not describe either a
problem or complaint but an observation. An observation that appears
to raise your ire. The real question is "why do you have a problem
with others making truthful observations that reflect negatively on
you?"

>
>
> >
> >> 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


The 2PD approach is the only one that I have seen work for everybody.

> and disparge
> others.


Truth by its nature disparages the untruthful.

> The former would be an appropriate discussion in this group;
> the latter would be more appropriate in one of the diet groups.


Ad hominem attacks as perpetrated by you is not appropriate anywhere,
Steve.

> 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.


If I gave the aspirin away for free, it would not be promoting.

Truth is simple.

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


Depends on the manner of the challenge.

> >
> > 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?


Then why are you here, Steve?

> >> --
> >> 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.


Some would call it mockery.

The "King of the Jews" sign above the head of a dying Jesus was
mockery.


> If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
> discussion.


Truthful would be better.

> 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 :)


Truth frustrates the untruthful.

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


He has been truthful, however.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
7 Dec 2003 13:56:15 -0800 in article
<[email protected]> [email protected]
(Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

>Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>> Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:55:28 -0500 in article
>> <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> 06 Dec 2003 20:35:35 GMT in article
>> >> <[email protected]> [email protected]
>> >> (John9212112) wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >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.
>> >>
>> >> So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie?
>> >
>> >Actually, he now remembers and is being truthful.
>> >

>> How on earth can you possibly _know_ that?

>
>It is what he wrote.
>

No it isn't. He wrote: "_maybe_ I saw a post from you one time with some
_possibly_ useful web references. Yo are a sloppy reader (or twist what
you read). He is not actually remembering, or that's what he writes, he
just thinks he may remember.

>> Is he your alter-ego?
>> >
>> >Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
>> >

>> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.

>
>What is a Christ-complex?
>

See

<http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/npd/69510/latest/1>

>> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.

>
>What is a Christ-complex?
>

See above
 
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:46:41 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

<Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz>

Chung, you really need to get some new material. Your lack of
imagination is showing. Why not take a break (we'll keep your place
warm), troll another group or two, and come back refreshed with some
new put-downs and non-sequiturs.

There are 262 groups in the alt.religion hierarchy, for example. If you
pitied, say 2 people per group per day, that's over 500 new
opportunities to witness and be humble every day. You could probably
dazzle us with new stuff on your return. Maybe Mu will even be back by
then and you could do the old Good Chung - Bad Chung routine with him.
It'd be like old times.

I hate to see you run down like this, spouting the same tired drivel
over and over. Where is the Chung of Old with such innovations as the
2PD, the iMAX Scientific Method, the Libel Suit, the Gift of Truth
Discernment, the Reverse Logic Syllogism, the Appeal to the Proper
Authorities, the Raft of Faith, etc.?

I know you are not washed-up... I know you can do it... I know you can
rise to new heights of absurdity... don't let us down!


--
God's Other Humble Servant

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


You implied it with the above.

> If it did inhibit
> you, now _that_ would be a welcome Newsflash :)


But not the truth. Why do you welcome untruths, Steve?

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> >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


Hang in there, brother. The beauty about being truthful is that it is effortless.
There is no sweat on our brow :)

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> >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


You needn't do that, brother. I am far from perfect. However, we can wish we were
more like our Lord for he is perfect.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> 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.


Since when does writing truthfully constitute fraud?

Perhaps you should go back to reading from a dictionary.

> Snip out the fullness of it and make
> up a self-serving definition.


You are confusing truth-serving with self-serving.

> You're merely a shabby imitation of
> fraud Chung.


You are confusing John with Steve.


> A shadow of a shadow...
>
> Pastorio


Your confusion appears to be a pathological manifestation of your
obsessions.

You have both my pity and my love, neighbor.

You remain in my prayers that you be cured of your mental problems.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 19:47:12 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

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

>
> You implied it with the above.


See, Chung, this is a little problem you seem to have with something
called "logic" (logic is only unwelcome to the illogical).

The proposition "If A, Then B" does not in any way imply "If not A,
then not B", except to the, well, illogical.

The point being made, which you either misunderstood or more likely
chose to misunderstand, was that without the first cause of your posts,
there would be no "Trolling Team" posts. See if you can misunderstand
that... I'll bet you can :)

>
>> If it did inhibit
>> you, now _that_ would be a welcome Newsflash :)

>
> But not the truth. Why do you welcome untruths, Steve?


How can anyone read this drivel of yours and credit you? If this sort
of word-gamesmanship is the best that you can do, I have overestimated
you. Oh, wait... I know... "the overestimated are the first to
overestimate".

Have you ever heard of an Idiot-Savant? I think I am going to enter
that diagnosis into Matti's Chung Diagnosis Sweepstakes. Sheesh.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
Steve wrote:

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 16:22:11 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
> > Steve <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >> 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.

> >
> > The problem with that suggestion is that both my web site and my
> > presence on Usenet *predate* my cardiology practice.

>
> So you are saying you were a cardiologist who didn't practice?


At the time, paid by Emory and NIH and did not own a practice.

> Hmm.
> Wonder why?


Was not ready.

> Or are you saying you weren't a cardiologist but posed as
> one?


See above.

>
> Whatever.


Perhaps you should care more about the truth.

> The point is that you practice *now* and you solicit *now*.


To prove cause and effect, the temporal association must exist.

You claim that there is profit-motive (cause) leading to the effect (my web and
Usenet presence).

The lack of a temporal association disproves your claim.


>
> I was merely pointing out that there are other possible explanations
> for your participation here than the one you cite, hence your "proof"
> is incomplete to say the least.


Only if you ignore history.

> Another possible explanation, for example, is that you participate in a
> misguided attempt to lure souls into your wacko fundamentalist sect.


That explanation is easily debunked by the fact I don't run a sect,
fundamentalist or otherwise.

>
> Another is that you are lonely and bored.


That explanation is debunked by the fact that there are folks like you hanging
around.

> Another is that you are a
> troll.
>


That explanation is debunked by your looking in the mirror.

>
> I'm not saying that any of these is the "real" reason, only that the
> mere fact of your participation does not "prove" anything except that
> you participate.


It continues to *serve* to prove that there is love in my heart for my neighbors,
including you.

If I were to turn you away, or state that because of your hatred, that I would
not ever help you, then that would *serve* to prove that there is not love in my
heart for you, neighbor.

> Please do me the favor of not snipping parts of this
> away to make it appear that I am saying something that I am not.
>


When I snip, it is to make it easier for folks to get to the important point,
especially for those who have been following and do not need to reread
everything. For those new to the discussion, they can always go to the archives
to retrieve anything.

>
> >
> >>> If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia,

> >
> > What proportion of the world's population resides in Georgia, do you
> > think?

>
> I dunno. What does it matter?


The answer illustrates what proportion of my efforts may actually benefit my
practice even if the "advertising" were my motivation.

> Six Billion times a small fraction is
> still more that you could probably handle alone.


Not with God's help.

> What fraction of all
> the people who receive spam email buy something as a result?


That fraction would be distributed world-wide.

> By all
> accounts, a fraction of a fraction of a percent... but still enough to
> make it a lucrative business.
>


My practice is already lucrative and yet I am here.

>
> And are you saying that you would turn away a patient who didn't live
> in Georgia?
>


Depends on the patient and his/her problem. If I don't think I can help, even if
offered a billion dollars, I would turn the patient away.

>
> >
> >>> 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.

> >
> > Thank you for proving that my website is not a marketing ploy. What
> > marketing program tells potential customers that they might be turned
> > away or there may not be a "fit" ?

>
> Well, Chung, there you go again claiming I have "proved" something. I
> suppose your "logic" goes something like this:
>
> All marketing ploys are smart


If it is a ploy, it should be.

>
> Chung's marketing ploy is dumb


This casting doubt on your claim that Chung's christian behavior is a marketing
ploy.

>
> Therefore, Chung's marketing ploy cannot be a marketing ploy.
>


The logic serves to disprove your claim.

>
> Newsflash (I know you like them): All marketing ploys are not smart.
> Bzzt! Syllogism breaks.
>


Newsflash: Christian behavior is not a marketing ploy.

>
> >
> >>> The more information you email, the more likely my decision
> >>> to send you a temporary username and password.

> >
> > What marketing strategy entails telling people that it is unlikely
> > that services or a product will be available for them?

>
> Newsflash: Many "marketing strategies" "qualify the customer" up front
> to winnow out tire kickers, people without medical insurance, cranks,
> chefs, Ethics Board Investigators, law enforcement agents, etc.
>


Those sound like marketing strategies of your own devising so that you can
continue to be argumentative. You probably wanted to snip this instead of
responding but that would undermine your request for me not to snip.

>
> So it is not remarkable at all that one might turn away customers who
> aren't fit. Next question?
>
> BTW, I will grant you that you are not a marketing genius if that is
> any consolation :) But what is at issue here is intent, not results.
>


Actually, the fact is my practice is lucrative, so your argument probably would
have been stronger had you made the results the issue.

You don't have a leg to stand on when it comes to intent:

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

>
> >
> >>> 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?

> >
> > Depends on whether the folks who are running those companies are
> > Christians.

>
> OK. Let me see if I follow that... I'm still learning Chungspeak, you
> know :)
>
> If the folks running Google, Yahoo, Microsoft,
> et al are Christians
> Then they run these free web sites because they
> love their neighbors.
>


If they are Christians, the latter becomes more probable.

>
> Ergo, by logic, we must conclude that
>
> If these web sites are not run by the folks at Google,
> Yahoo, Microsoft, et al because they love their neighbors
> Then they cannot be Christians.
>


If motives for doing things are not centered on love for others, it becomes less
likely that the involved folks are Christian.

>
> Is that about the size of what you are saying?
>


Nope. See above.

>
> Always good to have these little chats with you, Brother :)
>


You are welcome to call me brother when you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and
Savior, neighbor.

Please be sure to let me know when you do.

Meanwhile, you will remain in my prayers that the Holy Spirit will move you to
see and know the truth.


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


You are worshiping the wrong god, Steve.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

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

> On Sun, 7 Dec 2003 17:07:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
> < more of the usual snipped to spare everyone the agony>
>
> > Be on the winning team... join Christ's team.
> >

>
> It's on my list of "things to do". Will I need a password?
>


Yes. You'll find it in the Bible.


Humbly,

Andrew

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

> 7 Dec 2003 13:56:15 -0800 in article
> <[email protected]> [email protected]
> (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >> Sat, 06 Dec 2003 16:55:28 -0500 in article
> >> <[email protected]> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> 06 Dec 2003 20:35:35 GMT in article
> >> >> <[email protected]> [email protected]
> >> >> (John9212112) wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >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.
> >> >>
> >> >> So you _did_ remember, but decided to lie?
> >> >
> >> >Actually, he now remembers and is being truthful.
> >> >
> >> How on earth can you possibly _know_ that?

> >
> >It is what he wrote.
> >

> No it isn't. He wrote: "_maybe_ I saw a post from you one time with some
> _possibly_ useful web references. Yo are a sloppy reader (or twist what
> you read). He is not actually remembering, or that's what he writes, he
> just thinks he may remember.
>
> >> Is he your alter-ego?
> >> >
> >> >Your comments would speak to your anti-christian bias.
> >> >
> >> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.

> >
> >What is a Christ-complex?
> >

> See
>
> <http://www.suite101.com/discussion.cfm/npd/69510/latest/1>
>
> >> Not a chance. You do seem to have giant Christ-complex.

> >
> >What is a Christ-complex?
> >

> See above


The article does not describe Christ-complex. You probably misunderstood the article because English is
your *fifth* language.

Humbly,

Andrew

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