Suggestion to Dr. Chung



On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:14:07 -0800, [email protected]ere wrote:

>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


Matt,

I haven't the slightest interest in Dr. Chung's religious beliefs or
Diet suggestions and I simply ignore them. It's easy to do and does
not result in the prolix and voluble meanderings that sometimes occur
here.
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> <incoherent babbling snipped>


Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

Would suggest you seek psychiatric help. Let me know if you need a referral, neighbor.

Love,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
[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.
>
> Of course, that's no substitute to consulting with a doctor personally
> - something which Dr. Chung usually suggests.


Yep :)

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:11:39 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [email protected]ere wrote:
>
>> <incoherent babbling snipped>

>
> Truth has this effect on the untruthful.
>
> Would suggest you seek psychiatric help. Let me know if you need a
> referral, neighbor.


Matt,

Let me know if you plan to follow up on this... I'm thinking you, me,
and Pastorio could get a group discount :)


--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> 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>


None here at SMC either.

> Many people have
> made it clear that they do not appreciate the quasi-religious part.


Are you referring to the hissing from the peanut gallery?

> It
> is clearly off topic here. Would you agree?


No.

>
>
> >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,


Only when indicated.

> even though it has no published
> scientific basis.


Until recently most diets don't have scientific studies backing them. The
ones that do have >90% failure rates.

> He is the biggest spammer in the newsgroup.


Truth be told, the biggest contributor. However, that glory belongs to God
:)

> A good
> doctor would suggest trying one of the many diets that DO have a
> scientific basis, but that's NOT what he does.


There is yet to be a diet clinically proven to be effective (greater than
50%) for permanent weight loss.

In my experience, the 2PD approach is effective for permanent weight loss.


> Diets work best when
> they are tailored for the needs of a specific individual.


Diet approaches for weight loss that do not address excessive quantity of
food intake have been scientifically shown to be ineffective for permanent
weight loss.

Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:56:36 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [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.
>


Looks like you've found a straight man, Chung. This has the makings of
a classic team-up: Clarabelle and Howdy Doody, Rocky and Bullwinkle,
Ren and Stimpy, Chung and Mu, Chung and John9212112... although you
might want to do something about that number at the end. It's not very
euphonious and looks like one of those phone numbers you see on the
mens room wall to call to get a, well you know... In fact, I think I
remember seeing that particular one at a rest stop on the New Jersey
Turnpike.

Just trying to help you witness.

--
God's Other Humble Servant

Steve
 
[email protected]ere wrote:

> 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.

>
> <hissing from a toothless member of the peanut gallery snipped>


Truth distresses the untruthful.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 08:14:07 -0800, [email protected]ere wrote:
>
> >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

>
> Matt,
>
> I haven't the slightest interest in Dr. Chung's religious beliefs or
> Diet suggestions and I simply ignore them. It's easy to do and does
> not result in the prolix and voluble meanderings that sometimes occur
> here.


Listener,


Matt can't help himself.

He is drawn to the truth and it burns him.


Humbly,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:58:17 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [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.


"And have a heapin' helpin' of Chung's hos-pi-tal-i-ty"


--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in 
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:35:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> Are you referring to the hissing from the peanut gallery?


Chung, just a suggestion since Chunglish is your *** only *** language.
This is called a "mixed metaphor" and is generally frowned upon in
educated circles. Peanut Galleries don't hiss... they laugh.

The original Peanut Gallery was the audience of the Howdy Doody show in
the 1950's. They laughed at a clown and a wooden-headed puppet, so in
that case, "peanut gallery" is probably an appropriate metaphor for
anyone observing you and Mu or you and your new Junior Chung Ranger,
John123456789.

--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in 
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve

Helping Chung to witness since 2003
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:39:17 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> [email protected]ere wrote:
>
>> 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.

>>
>> <hissing from a toothless member of the peanut gallery snipped>

>
> Truth distresses the untruthful.
>


So sorry you are distressed, Chung. Matti was only trying to set the
record straight... not that he needs to when attacked by a nit on the
back of a flea.


--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in 
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve

879 helpings of Truth served up since opening
 
>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]

>>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".

[...]
>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 ...


I'd have to read them all to sort them out. I'm not interested in doing this.

>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.


Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss. I'm approaching this as
a mildly interested but casual observer. My search was simple and was focused
primarily on getting message counts in two categories - those that didn't
mention Dr. Chung and those that did. Going any further than this means that I
need to read and reread a lot of posts that I really have no interest in,
especially the off-topic ones. I'm not going to do this. If you want to do
this yourself and offer an explanation of my results, fine, I'll look at it.
But I've gone as far as I'm going to go with this. If you want to drop it too,
fine. If you want the last word, go ahead and take it. But I maintain my
opinion that your "good" posts are at least partially covered up by your "bad"
posts.

Actually, I think it's not a bad idea to occasionally do a Google on yourself
to see how you've been doing. My own posting record (under a different screen
name) goes back over ten years and it's interesting to review how I've been
doing. Looking back, there are few posts that I wish were not archived.

>You have more confessing to do.

Nope.
>Shame on you.

No thanks, you can keep it.

Wishing you and yours a joy filled and merry Christmas,
John
 
>From: Steve [email protected]
>On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:35:59 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
>(in message <[email protected]>):
>
>> Are you referring to the hissing from the peanut gallery?

>
>Chung, just a suggestion since Chunglish is your *** only *** language.
>This is called a "mixed metaphor" and is generally frowned upon in
>educated circles. Peanut Galleries don't hiss... they laugh.
>
>The original Peanut Gallery was the audience of the Howdy Doody show in
>the 1950's. They laughed at a clown and a wooden-headed puppet, so in
>that case, "peanut gallery" is probably an appropriate metaphor for
>anyone observing you and Mu or you and your new Junior Chung Ranger,
>John123456789.
>
>--
>"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
>them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in=A0
>heaven." (Mat 6:1)
>
>Steve
>
>Helping Chung to witness since 2003


Steve,

Your apparent use of this verse seems to be to accuse Dr. Chung of appearing to
be pious in front of this newsgroup in order to impress us. Clearly, the verse
is talking about intent. But, how can you know Dr. Chung's heart? Perhaps you
mistakenly think that you are Jesus - sort of a Christ Complex?

In fact, Christ wants us to walk as Christians ALL the time, to be a witness as
to how our faith has changed us. But not so that we might appear to be pious
before other men, but for the glory of God. So how should Christians show
their faith in "the world", i.e., outside of home and church? "The world"
would have us be like them. I prefer the beginning words of an old hymn,
"Stand up, stand up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross."

Steve, it would seem that you could profit from attending a Bible study class
so that you could learn how to interpret these words correctly. I'm sure that
Dr. Chung or myself would be happy to help you find a suitable class.

Remembering why we celibrate Christmas,
John
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:39:17 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Truth distresses the untruthful.


Not true in all cases. You seem to be untruthful without any distress.
See - another thing you said that is not true. And that is the truth.

Why not get your tinnitus fixed? It might help with the hissing that
you keep reporting to us. <g> Sorry you have such a hearing problem.
Perhaps it is hindering your comprehension too. You should see a
doctor.
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:01:23 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:

>"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
>them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in 
>heaven." (Mat 6:1)


You mean when he says:

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

He REALLY wants to be seen. How unchristian of him. We should pray for
him to change his ways before it is too late.
Matt
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:04:33 -0500, John9212112 wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

[snip]

>> "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
>> them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
>> heaven." (Mat 6:1)


Look, Junior Chung Ranger, I told you I wasn't going to be dealing with
you after that dishonest chop-job you did on my post... but since it's
Christmas and all, I'll make an exception in this case.

> Your apparent use of this verse...


What "apparent use"... you mean my "actual" use?

> ... seems to be to accuse Dr. Chung of
> appearing to be pious in front of this newsgroup in order to impress
> us. Clearly, the verse is talking about intent. But, how can you
> know Dr. Chung's heart?


Let me get this straight... _you_ know what's in _my_ heart ("seems to
be to accuse"), but I can't know what's in Chung's heart? You don't
see just a _tiny_ bit of irony here?

Your hero always says that the truth is simple. This is a direct quote
from the Bible... I have not edited it an any fashion. It is God's
word, not mine. It is not my responsibility how you or anyone else
interprets it... it's God's responsibility.

Now if you were to say that anyone familiar with Chung's postings, upon
reading this, would conclude that Chung was "practicing his piety
before men", I could hardly disagree with you. But I cannot be held
responsible for what conclusions any one draws from the unedited,
unvarnished word of God.

> Perhaps you mistakenly think that you are Jesus - sort of a Christ Complex?


You see, now this just reveals that you have learned the Reverse Chung
Cheap Shot. I defy any rational person to describe any logic that
would lead anyone to believe, based on what I have written, that I
think I am Jesus... even Chung, the Father of Lies, has not accused me
of that. However, your accusing me of it simply demonstrates how you
blaspheme and casually throw about that which you profess to hold
sacred... using it as a barb in an amateurish argument. Didn't I read
something somewhere about taking His name in vain?

> In fact, Christ wants us to walk as Christians ALL the time,


Yeah, right... as in the above.

> to be a witness as to how our faith has changed us. But not so that
> we might appear to be pious before other men, but for the glory of
> God. So how should Christians show their faith in "the world",
> i.e., outside of home and church? "The world" would have us be like
> them. I prefer the beginning words of an old hymn, "Stand up, stand
> up for Jesus, ye soldiers of the Cross."
>
> Steve, it would seem that you could profit from attending a Bible study class
> so that you could learn how to interpret these words correctly.


"Correctly" meaning _your_ interpretation, of course.

> I'm sure that Dr. Chung or myself would be happy to help you find a
> suitable class.


I hope you understand when I say "Thanks, but No Thanks"


> Remembering why we celibrate Christmas,


And God Bless Us, Every One.



--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:37:48 -0500, [email protected]ere wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 13:01:23 -0500, Steve <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> "Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
>> them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in 
>> heaven." (Mat 6:1)

>
> You mean when he says:
>
> "I am truly thankful for this extraordinary opportunity to glorify God
> to a worldwide audience."
>
> He REALLY wants to be seen. How unchristian of him. We should pray for
> him to change his ways before it is too late.
> Matt


Now, now Matt... you can't know what is in that tiny little heart of
his.

--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve
 
10 Dec 2003 18:05:48 GMT in article
<[email protected]> [email protected]
(John9212112) wrote:

>>From: Matti Narkia [email protected]

>
>>>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".

>[...]
> >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 ...

>
>I'd have to read them all to sort them out. I'm not interested in doing this.
>

No. Your interest is in telling lies and unsubstantiated assumptions about
other debaters. Much easier, requires no effort.

>>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.

>
>Look, Matti, this is not my job, nor are you my boss.


In discussions you have to be able to prove your claim unless you want to
lose all your credibility (you have).

> I'm approaching this as
>a mildly interested but casual observer.


It seems much more than "mildly interested".

> My search was simple and was focused
>primarily on getting message counts in two categories - those that didn't
>mention Dr. Chung and those that did.


That was the problem, your search too was simplistic, it didn't give the
information you thought it did.

>Going any further than this means that I
>need to read and reread a lot of posts that I really have no interest in,
>especially the off-topic ones.


If you have no interest in backing up your claims, you should restrain
yourself from making any claims.

> I'm not going to do this. If you want to do
>this yourself and offer an explanation of my results, fine, I'll look at it.


I didn't make a claim in question, you did. The burden of proof is on you.
 
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 14:27:23 -0500, [email protected]ere wrote
(in message <[email protected]>):

> On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 12:39:17 -0500, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Truth distresses the untruthful.

>
> Not true in all cases. You seem to be untruthful without any distress.
> See - another thing you said that is not true. And that is the truth.
>
> Why not get your tinnitus fixed? It might help with the hissing that
> you keep reporting to us. <g> Sorry you have such a hearing problem.
> Perhaps it is hindering your comprehension too. You should see a
> doctor.


LOL. And we'd be happy to recommend one :)

--
"Beware of practicing your piety before men in order to be seen by
them; for then you will have no reward from your Father who is in
heaven." (Mat 6:1)

Steve