Suggestion to Dr. Chung



True but that is because they all want to be paid for their services. Say "
Thank you Dr Chung for your time and effort."
 
Steve wrote:
> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 13:31:37 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
>>Bob Pastorio wrote:
>>
>>><desperate attempts to squelch the truth snipped>

>>
>>Suggest you seek psychiatric help, neighbor.
>>

> Well, it's a shorter macro, at least :)


And, astonishingly, an even more elegant a show of "creative
truthtelling;" a nadir of mendacity. A very impressive performance
from the odds-on favorite to win the Bill Palmer Memorial Content-Free
Posts award.

Huzzah, I say. Chung is the best at this innuendo stuff.

Pastorio
 
Complex592 wrote:

> True but that is because they all want to be paid for their services. Say "
> Thank you Dr Chung for your time and effort."


May God get all the glory :)


Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:06:22 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Complex592 wrote:
>
>> True but that is because they all want to be paid for their services. Say
>> "
>> Thank you Dr Chung for your time and effort."

>
> May God get all the glory :)
>


Chung, aren't you laying it on just a _bit_ thick :)

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
Steve wrote:

> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:06:22 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> (in message <[email protected]>):
>
> > Complex592 wrote:
> >
> >> True but that is because they all want to be paid for their services. Say
> >> "
> >> Thank you Dr Chung for your time and effort."

> >
> > May God get all the glory :)
> >

>
> Chung, aren't you laying it on just a _bit_ thick :)
>


Truth is hardly "thick."

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
 
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:18:48 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Steve wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 20:06:22 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>> (in message <[email protected]>):
>>
>>> Complex592 wrote:
>>>
>>>> True but that is because they all want to be paid for their services.
>>>> Say
>>>> "
>>>> Thank you Dr Chung for your time and effort."
>>>
>>> May God get all the glory :)
>>>

>>
>> Chung, aren't you laying it on just a _bit_ thick :)
>>

>
> Truth is hardly "thick."
>


Well, it's hip deep out here in the peanut gallery :)

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:25:14 +0100, Gosia <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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


You might want to get a second opinion. <g>
Matt
 
>
> Is it your claim that I am a quack? Just want you to be clearly understood,
> that's all.
>
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew


ANYONE who advocates a diet based on the weight of food alone is,
IMHO, a quack.

Clear enough?

BTW, from the looks of your "office", not many are biting on the 2 LB
diet and your other dubious nostrums. Oh, except for your
sockpuppets.

If you are truly an MD, I would suggest you spend your time practicing
medicine responsibly rather than promulgating bogus diets and
threatening and insulting others.

The fake piety could use a rest as well.
 
On Tue, 9 Dec 2003 21:40:11 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> Chung, aren't you laying it on just a _bit_ thick :)
>>>

>>
>> Truth is hardly "thick."
>>

>
>Well, it's hip deep out here in the peanut gallery :)


If it gets any deeper, I'll have to build an ark.
Matt
 
bjmpls wrote:

> >
> > Is it your claim that I am a quack? Just want you to be clearly understood,
> > that's all.
> >
> > Humbly,
> >
> > Andrew

>
> ANYONE who advocates a diet based on the weight of food alone is,
> IMHO, a quack.
>


Why is that?

Are you saying that if your doctor recommended the 2PD approach to you, you would
call him/her a quack out of humility?



>
> Clear enough?
>


Not really.

>
> BTW, from the looks of your "office", not many are biting on the 2 LB
> diet and your other dubious nostrums.


And when have you seen my office?

> Oh, except for your
> sockpuppets.
>


And pray tell, who do you believe are my sock puppets?

>
> If you are truly an MD,


and I am.

> I would suggest you spend your time practicing
> medicine


I do

> responsibly rather than promulgating bogus diets


the 2PD approach is not bogus. Sorry to disappoint.

> and
> threatening and insulting others.
>


Truth threatens and insults the untruthful.

>
> The fake piety could use a rest as well.


Truth isn't tiresome.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

>ANYONE who advocates a diet based on the weight of food alone is,
>IMHO, a quack.


Help me out here. I am trying to guess the meaning of IMHO from the context.
The only thing that makes sense is: IMHO - In My Hateful Opinion.
Right?

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

> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>>
>>>bjmpls wrote:


>>>>Actually, "truth be told", your constant threats to sue people you
>>>>disagree with for "libel" is getting a bit old.
>>>
>>>Pastorio hardly a people make.

>>
>>What perfectly splendid use of the language.

>
>>>>And your inane
>>>>theories about diet, taken together with your overweening
>>>
>>>overweening?

>>
>>Yes. Overweening and in arrogant.

>
> Is that supposed to be a sentence?


Actually no, it isn't. It's supposed to be a sentence fragment. It was
a typographic error that should have read "Overweening as in arrogant."

>>Any native speaker of English should
>>know that.

>
> Doesn't look like a sentence to me.


And now you know why. And now you also know why the word "overweening"
applies to you like ugly on a monkey.

>>Chung's rather constant bad use of the language should be a
>>source of embarrassment.

>
> Why should I be embarrassed by your problems?


<LOL> Chung points to a typo as an example of bad English usage while
himself displaying a careless disregard for accuracy and honesty in
using the language. Hilarious, and a classic display of his hypocrisy.

>>>>and
>>>>incessant references to Christ, and your alacrity in shelling out
>>>>medical advice to persons unseen and unexamined
>>>
>>>When I give medical advice, I will have examined said individual receiving
>>>the advice.

>>
>>I wonder if it's Chung's claim that all the people he gives "medical
>>advice" to have been examined by him?

>
> It is.
>
>>All these posts with "diagnoses"
>>and suggestions for treatment?

>
> Should be easy for you to cite such posts if they exist.


Anyone needing to refresh their memories of such posts only need to
read what Chung posted today, both in his quack mode and his
advice-giving mode. No need to even visit the halls of Google. It's
available every day...

>>Did those people go to his office?

>
> Folks that want my medical advice, do.
>
>>Meet him in a hospital?

>
> Possibly.
>
>>Oh, wait.
>>He has no hospital privileges.

>
> You seem to be having delusions again.


Notice how he doesn't deny that he has no hospital privileges. Notice
how he immediately slips into Chungspeak and "describes" or
"diagnoses" illegal drug use and mental infirmity on my part.

> Would suggest you stop eating
> the mushrooms and see a psychiatrist. You can visit me at my office
> and after examining you, I could start some psychotropic medications
> and refer you to a psychiatrist.


Chung could refer me to a psychiatrist, he says. Because he's
unqualified to evaluate anything to do with psychiatry. And in keeping
with his quackery, first he prescribes medicine, then refers to a
trained professional who will know better what to do than he does.

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

>>Examined, he says.

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

>
> No.


So all the people Chung advises online have been examined by him? All
the advice he gives in SMC has been tailored to the specific patient
that he knows about from personal contact and examination?

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

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


Nice try from Chung to avoid the reality. His web site offers a way to
get in touch with him for the purpose of becoming a patient of his. By
any rational view, that's called advertising. And since he doesn't say
the service is free, a reasonable assumption would be that he charges
for his time. Sounds like a sales promotion program designed to make
Chung money. To bolster a medical practice. To make money.

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

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


I cannot see into Chung's heart. I can see into Chung's words and
actions. Working on the principle that people don't act more honorably
than their core (heart) values, it's rather a simple and essentially
unavoidable conclusion that Chung is money-grubbing with his web site.
Not to mention misrepresenting what others have posted online and
tried to punish people with untruths.

>>>Humbly,

>>
>><Insert definition of humble here>

>
> Doing so would only prove that I continue to write truthfully.


If Chung insists, here's the definition that "proves" that Chung is
either deluded or a fraud. Or both.

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.

Pastorio
 
On Tue, 09 Dec 2003 23:36:20 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>[email protected] wrote:
>
>> On 9 Dec 2003 09:57:13 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
>> Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:
>>
>> >> >This quote confirms that Christ Complex is something other than the Narcisstic Christ Complex.
>> >>
>> ><incoherent drivel about Chunglish snipped>

>>
>> Awww. Here I thought I was beginning to understand Chunglish.

>
>Speaks to your incoherence.


Sorry you can't comprehend English.

>> What,
>> exactly, was not true about what I said?
>>

>
>Why would anyone characterize the sound from a babbling brook as either truthful or not?


You DO babble a lot. <grin> Speaking of incoherence, your incoherence
is absolute, just like your truth.

>> Didn't you say that Narcissistic Christ Complex is not Christ
>> Complex?
>>

>
>No.


Yes. You said "Christ Complex is something other than the Narcisstic
Christ Complex." If it is "something other than", it is not identical.
You lose. But I'm sure you will continue babbling about this. <g>
Can't wait. This is fun. <g>

>> >Truth drives the untruthful crazy.

>>
>> Indeed it does. <grin>

>
>Poor soul.


You are a poor soul, I agree. We pray for you.

>> Therefore, you have my pity. <bigger grin>

>
>Thanks. I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God to a worldwide
>audience. Your participation in these discussion has really helped make this possible. The
>juxtaposition of the civility of christians and the rantings of anti-christians is probably helping
>folks clearly discern the truth.


Speaks to your inability to comprehend English. Probaly makes some
real christians throw up too.

>> But wait. In Chunglish untruth is truth.

>
>it does not surprise me that you would advocate truth over
>untruth.


Of course I do. Glad that you agree I speak the truth.

>> I need to remember that in
>> Chunglish, things mean the opposite of English.

>
>Truth is easier to remember.


I agree. Try it sometime.

>> I must also remember
>> that it SEEMS true to you. <grin>
>>

>
>It is not about me.


Of course it is. As you say - I am truly thankful for this
extraordinary opportunity to glorify God to a worldwide
audience.

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

>>
>> More good Chunglish. Note that it means the opposite of English. The
>> other untruth is that you are my neighbor. Very good. You got two
>> untruths in one sentence. Chunglish. is clearly your first language!
>>

>You are back to being incoherent.


Sorry you can't comprehend English. Chunglish is clearly your first
language!

>>
>> >Humble servant of Christ,

>>
>> Puzzle for the reader: how many untruths are in this one sentence?

>
>None. What you refer to is not a sentence.


Your writing. Sorry you can't write English.

>> More good Chunglish. <grin>
>> Matt

>
>If you say so..


Glad you agree you write Chunglish.
Matt
 
On 9 Dec 2003 20:24:52 -0800, [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote:

<snip reasoning>

You are trying to reason with him. It is a waste of time. His real
goal is, as he says:

"I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God
to a worldwide audience."

THAT is what it is about. He will troll ENDLESSLY for replies just to
continue the above goal. Don't feed his troll with serious reasoning.
It will not go anywhere. Any reasoned response gets a "I know the
truth" reply.

It is fun to play with him a bit though. Gets boring quickly. He is
SO predictable.
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:25:14 +0100, Gosia <[email protected]> wrote:

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

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


There are many forums (i.e. the Cleveland Clinic forums) where doctors
offer opinion and/or advice to questions.

Of course, that's no substitute to consulting with a doctor personally
- something which Dr. Chung usually suggests.
 
Tue, 09 Dec 2003 03:28:24 +0200 in article
<[email protected]> Matti Narkia
<[email protected]> wrote:

>09 Dec 2003 00:28:40 GMT in article
><[email protected]> [email protected]
>(John9212112) wrote:
>>
>>Searching for Matti Narkia I found 416 posts. Of these 205 did not contain the
>>word, "chung". A quick visual scan of these indicated that most of these 205
>>were not related to the war against Dr. Chung. But......50%??
>>And you seem to claim not to be heavily invested in this war? Is it any wonder
>>that I didn't notice or forgot about your on-topic posts? You've done a great
>>job of hiding them.
>>

>You don't seem to have even an elementary idea how to use Google. If you
>reply to a person's, say Chung's, message, that person's, e.g. Chung's,
>name will be in the first lines, just like John9212112 is on the third
>line of this message. I have had several fact based discussions with Chung
>which could in no way be characterized a "war".
>

Just a couple of quick examples:

<http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=v8paqv0p9e088e36v3fk4l6fuln4h0nuip%404ax.com>
( http://tinyurl.com/yl4y )

<http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=5o5gpv8ad8f7gfjq339uvkafk62u445l8f%404ax.com>
( http://tinyurl.com/yl5b )

http://groups.google.fi/[email protected]
( http://tinyurl.com/yl5y )

<http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=gmqdpvkmaueg447l1kv9og9h47v48gn8r1%404ax.com>
( http://tinyurl.com/yl6g )

<http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=ujs9pvknc4pemnh74qjfq34fcmouo03qti%404ax.com>
( http://tinyurl.com/yl6m )

I fact most of my replies to Chung have been on-topic. Do your homework!

>Additionally, even if I don't reply to Chung's message and not even
>mention his name, his name could still appear in my message, because I may
>be commenting someone else's message, who has commented Chung's message,
>and so on ...
>

An example:

<http://groups.google.fi/groups?selm=3695296c.904340%40news.clinet.fi>
( http://tinyurl.com/yl4o )

Do you now start to realize how faulty and distorted your method is?
And after such a disastrously blundering "research" effort you have the
nerve to blurt

"Is it any wonder that I didn't notice or forgot about your on-topic
posts? You've done a great job of hiding them."

And remember (or perhaps you can't because of your poor memory) that you
first claimed that you hadn't seen "a single useful, on-topic post" from
me. Then, when challenged, you confessed that maybe you saw a post from me
one time with some possibly useful web references. Now you confess that
according to your Google search 205 of my messages in this ng did not even
contain the word Chung and were not related to the war against Dr. Chung.
And as I've just pointed out, the majority of even the remaining messages
is strictly on-topic. I find it extremely hard to believe that you could
have missed all these messages as you claimed in the beginning. You have
more confessing to do.

Shame on you.
 
[email protected] (John9212112) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> >From: [email protected] (bjmpls)

>
> >ANYONE who advocates a diet based on the weight of food alone is,
> >IMHO, a quack.

>
> Help me out here. I am trying to guess the meaning of IMHO from the context.
> The only thing that makes sense is: IMHO - In My Hateful Opinion.
> Right?


Right.

Truth is simple.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[email protected]ere wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> On 9 Dec 2003 20:24:52 -0800, [email protected] (bjmpls) wrote:
>
> <snip reasoning>
>
> You are trying to reason with him. It is a waste of time. His real
> goal is, as he says:
>
> "I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God
> to a worldwide audience."
>
> THAT is what it is about. He will troll ENDLESSLY for replies just to
> continue the above goal. Don't feed his troll with serious reasoning.
> It will not go anywhere. Any reasoned response gets a "I know the
> truth" reply.
>
> It is fun to play with him a bit though. Gets boring quickly. He is
> SO predictable.
> Matt


Bye (wave)

Sorry to see you go. Come back an visit anytime, neighbor.

Love,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 07:42:35 -0500, [email protected] wrote:

>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:25:14 +0100, Gosia <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>>Apparently he is and he has. Unbelievable, isn't it?

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

>
>There are many forums (i.e. the Cleveland Clinic forums) where doctors
>offer opinion and/or advice to questions.


True, but none of these come with a sermon. <grin> Many people have
made it clear that they do not appreciate the quasi-religious part. It
is clearly off topic here. Would you agree?

>Of course, that's no substitute to consulting with a doctor personally
>- something which Dr. Chung usually suggests.


What he usually suggests is his diet, even though it has no published
scientific basis. He is the biggest spammer in the newsgroup. A good
doctor would suggest trying one of the many diets that DO have a
scientific basis, but that's NOT what he does. Diets work best when
they are tailored for the needs of a specific individual. Would you
agree?
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 16:36:08 +0200, Matti Narkia <[email protected]>
wrote:

>And remember (or perhaps you can't because of your poor memory) that you
>first claimed that you hadn't seen "a single useful, on-topic post" from
>me. Then, when challenged, you confessed that maybe you saw a post from me
>one time with some possibly useful web references. Now you confess that
>according to your Google search 205 of my messages in this ng did not even
>contain the word Chung and were not related to the war against Dr. Chung.
>And as I've just pointed out, the majority of even the remaining messages
>is strictly on-topic. I find it extremely hard to believe that you could
>have missed all these messages as you claimed in the beginning.


John does the "Chung shuffle" almost as well as Chung. <grin> He says
whatever sounds good at the moment. Perhaps he's the latest
incarnation of Mu. Anyone with even a passing familiarity with SMC
knows your attention to detail and documentation. Don't let someone as
incompetent as John get you down.
Matt