Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> 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.
Nah. What Chung does is "Humpty-Dumpty" speak. It's when he makes up
his own definition of a common word that flies in the face of common
or dictionary words. Like when he calls himself humble and he's really
being arrogant. ******** is called Humpty-Dumpty speak by the truthful.
>>>>>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.
Funny thing how "Mel Hall" wrote that 48 out of 55 people who started
the diet in the one case completed it. Looks like some fail. Chung
didn't seem to accept the material in the post from "Mel" as requoted
here. The one praising Chung's "diet" and Mu. The one where "she" said
that her ex-husband put dozens and dozens of people on the "diet" and
*some* stuck with it. Poor Chung now has to figure out how to accept
the "testimonial" but erase the "fact" that some failed.
>> 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.
Of course it wouldn't raise anyone's ire. Obsessions with cooking
likely won't lead to obesity as it's excessive caloric consumption and
insufficient metabolizing of those calories that cause most obesity. I
don't believe that I've ever met anyone obsessed with cooking, per se.
Wise consumption of high quality materials, respectfully and
interestingly treated is the best goal for people who are interested
in food. But that would be beyond Chung's capacity for understanding
despite being Chinese, the one culture that has developed cuisine
further than the French. Chung rejects his heritage and his cultural
roots as easily as truth.
> 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.
Even liars, frauds and quacks like Chung are welcome here. As though
Chung could do anything about them, anyway.
Chung keeps "forgetting" that libel needs to be false to be so
defined. That's why he doesn't do anything about what he terms the
libel of others. He doesn't want to look even more stupid than he
already does.
> 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.
Chung thinks we're only talking about saturated fats. Shitwit
apparently doesn't seem to notice that we're talking about a good deal
more than just that and he doesn't know what he's talking about. He
wants to consume only oils that are liquid at refrigerator
temperatures. Wonderful. That viewpoint suits his crippled
understadning of teh role of food in human society. I wonder if he
remembers enough Chinese to consider the daily greetings that pass
between people. He seems most assuredly not to remember the spirit of
hospitality and generosity indigenous to all the Chinese cultures.
Crabbed Chung who show more and more how he worships teh body adn
fears its natural actions and reactions. Chung is afraid of his dining
table and the normal things of being alive and shows that fear daily
with his frightened posts. He said he replaced his amalgam fillings on
teh off-chance they could be harmful. What a man of science who
doesn't bother to look deeper than teh surface fear.
His knowledge of nutrition is even more shallow than his knowledge of
psychiatry that he uses to make "diagnoses" of the mental states of
others.
How can anyone hate a clown? His "diet" is even more hilarious than he
is. He obviously needs a dictionary for even the most basic of
communications. He can't seem to see the difference between hatred and
bemused contempt. But it serves his twisted purposes to see himself as
a persecuted victim of others. That's better, in his sadly crippled
mind, than stopping to consider if he's wrong.
>>>>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.
Then why doesn't he do that?
>>>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.
And if frogs had wings, they wouldn't bump their asses.
>>> 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?
Old territory. Been done again and again. "John" seems unable to do
his own homework before spouting his ****.
>>>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.
Wishful thinking on Chung's part. As so much is.
> See:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Quackery masquerading as medical information.
>> 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 with the poor memory that "John" both claims and
demonstrates would do as the injunction suggests. God helps those who
help themselves.
>>Perhaps someone else will choose to repeat them here for your benefit,
>
> Why not you?
Trying to teach a pig to sing is futile. It won't work and is merely
likely to upset the pig.
> Don't you know how to use Google?
Apparently "John" doesn't.
>>but at this point I find there is enough evidence of your lack of good
>>faith
>
> The untruthful are blind to the truth.
And, as any plumber knows, **** flows downhill.
>>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.
Another case of Chung's famous technique of assertion without proof.
Spotlighting Chung's fragile grasp on reality is what Steve has done.
It's a public service.
In Chungspeak's wonderful perversion of English, truthful=whatever
Chung says. Disagreeing with Chung or, worse, pointing out his fakery
is "untruthful" to him. I bet Chung has the novel "1984" memorized.
Now if he would just use English as though he actually spoke it rather
than that ESL approach he's famous for.
>>>>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.
Chung suspects that "John" can back it up. Note that neither Chung nor
"John" has done so.
>> >> 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.
But none is necessary beyond the notice that this is usenet with all
the freedom implicit in the form. It requires no "rational argument"
beyond "res ipsa loquitur" to demonstrate it. Any opinion has currency
on usenet, even the wacko "diet" foolishness that Chung espouses.
Likewise its too-easy debunking. All grist for this mill.
> 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.
And, lamentably, he has shown himself to be even more shallow than
Chung/Mu. With a bad memory, to boot. His familiarity "with the full
history" was never so clear as when he tried to back away from what he
posted and tried to claim it as a "mistake."
>> 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.
<applause> Great job by Chung to try to change the subject to Steve
rather than the crux of the discourse. Bzzzzzzzzt. Back to topic; the
legitimacy of contradicting Chung. Nature of the human situation and
the nature of usenet. Chung is free to say what he will and so is
everybody else.
>>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?"
Not quite. The "real question" is how stupid is "John" to make his
easily refuted lies and obfuscations? His "observations" were rather
easily demolished. This demonstrate even further what a
liar-by-insinuation Chung is in posting this, above.
>>>>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.
Except for those for whom it doesn't work. Notice that Chung has
offered nothing beyond his obviously dishonest word about it. And what
about the evidence offered by Mu's friend Doctor Mel Hall when she
says that a good percentage never make it?
>>and disparge others.
>
> Truth by its nature disparages the untruthful.
<LOL> So when Chung spouts his uninformed nonsense about alternate
dietary approaches, what does it do? Disparages Chung. So when Chung
offers his lies, what does it do? Disparage Chung.
>> 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.
Chung, the nasty master of ad hominem innuendo and insinuation points
his blackened finger at anyone else? What astonishing but typical
hypocrisy.
>>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.
Only for the simpleminded.
>>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.
Fraud deserves the most strenuous 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?
Try again here. Steve is *not* here to see posts by Chung where he
prattles on his fundamentalist, cultist brand of Chungianity.
>>>>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.
And it would be deserved. It mocks a false piety.
> The "King of the Jews" sign above the head of a dying Jesus was
> mockery.
Chung compares himself to Jesus, again.
>>If you want to come back with some facts, I am open to an intelligent
>>discussion.
>
> Truthful would be better.
And with Chung, a novelty.
>> 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.
How silly a thing to say. Obfuscation frustrates the truthful. As does
lying, as does malice, as does innuendo and insinuation. Chung's
dishonesty frustrates the truthful.
>> And at
>>this point, you are not even a good Chung.
>
> He has been truthful, however.
Chung can look into "John's" heart and know that. Chung, the font of
faith become knowledge. Chung the fraud and quack.
Pastorio
