This group is so boring now



> > He remains obsessed with potatoes.
>
> And yet, Chung has posted at length about potatoes again today. He

Please, do not crosspost garbage to ADSLC.

Mirek
 
Mirek Fidler wrote:
>
> > > He remains obsessed with potatoes.
> >
> > And yet, Chung has posted at length about potatoes again today. He
>
> Please, do not crosspost garbage to ADSLC.
>
> Mirek

Bob can't help it.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J31722867

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Bill wrote:
>
> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> Socks as far as the eye can see...
> >
> > Bob
> >
>
> Perhaps you should consider doing laundry. :)
>
> Bill

Poor Bob.

Everyone who does not believe him, must be a sock.

"Socks as far as the eye can see.."

:)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J31722867

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
John wrote:
>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:16:11 +0100, Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >>
> >[...]
> >> Fwiw, you and I and others know that I freely admit to errors when I make them (especially when
> >> the error may lead to harm). No, I am not perfect nor do I wish to be. However, God has allowed
> >> me to be right much more often than wrong. Such righteousness belongs to Him and not to me. The
> >> glory is all His.
> >>
> >> It remains my opinion the greater harm would be to tell someone who is obese that 2 pounds of
> >> potatoes has only about 800 calories and that for their dieting to lose weight, they can eat
> >> more than 4 pounds of potatoes and be under a seemingly reasonable 1800-2000 calorie intake
> >> restriction.
> >
> >So your saying that the truth is dangerous?
> >
> >> So, yes, I will stick to my assertion that 2 lbs of potatoes is *about* 3600 calories.
> >
> >So you prefer untruth over truth.
> >
> >> This way, in the worse case scenario of an obese person eating baked potato chips (near zero
> >> water content), we won't be dealing with a massive 7200+ calorie intake (4+ pounds) that will
> >> take days of fasting to overcome.
> >
> >baked potatoe chips <> potatoes
> >
> >You must think us to be fools not to know the difference.
> >
> >> Far better still is to skip the calories and just stick with food weights:
> >>
> >> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> >>
> >> It's simpler and you know exactly how much you are eating. There is no guessing.
> >
> >Yeah, right, I would know how much my food weighs, which is totally irrelevant if I don't take
> >into account the nutritional value.
> >
> >> With calories, it is more complicated,
> >
> >Not _that_ complicated. But of course it requires the ability to look up the calorie content of
> >a food.
> >
> >> and because of variable water content, you never really know how many calories you are eating.
> >
> >That's not necessary. A general idea about how much calories you eat is enough.
> >
> >> There is simply too much "wiggle" room to sneak in excess calories. And, I am certain that most
> >> people reading this know how adept obese folks are at taking advantage of any "wiggle" room.
> >> This is why there are those who hate the 2PD approach... there is no "wiggle" room... and they
> >> know it.
> >
> >Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Eat two pounds of chocolate and you have all the "wiggle" room
> >you want on your diet. Thorsten
>
> If facts, logic and truth were available to and used by everyone there would be no obese people.
> But yet we have obese people so maybe facts logic and truth aren't enough, even if we actually had
> all the facts we needed.
>
> The "truth" about potatoes is that the caloric density varies from about 800 kcal/kg to something
> over 5000 kcal/kg depending on exactly what form of potato is used and how it is prepared and
> served. As for the 800 figure - that is for boiled potatoes with nothing added. I don't know
> anybody who eats potatoes that way. The other end of the scale is for a certain kind potato chips.
> I wonder what the caloric density of an average serving of potatoes that obese people eat might
> be? It seems to me that the error in assuming a value of 3600 kcal/kg would likely be much less in
> error than assuming a value of 800.
>
> If you are eating at home you could read the label on the food package to see what you've been
> served. If you order potatoes at a restaurant where Bob Pastorio is the chef, what do you get? You
> don't really don't have any way to know, do you? I wonder if Bob can tell us how many calories are
> in the potato dishes that he serves to his customers? Does he even know? How about a nice candied
> sweet potato with butter lathered on top?
>
> Ok, suppose Bob actually knows the caloric density. Now the customer still has to weigh each
> individual food item on the plate, multiply each weight by the caloric density Bob has supplied
> and add it up. Does anybody actually do that? Nyaaa. If the food is good (benefit of the doubt to
> Bob here), they just clean their plates and figure they'll be Spartans tomorrow.
>
> With 2PD, you don't need to know caloric density, just the total weight of everything (that you
> eat) on the plate. I have found that after a couple of months of weighing my dinner plate at home,
> I can estimate it with 10% or so by eye and heft. Lots easier. Lots more consistent. No more just
> cleaning the plate. Success. Happiness.
>
> Thank you Lord for giving this wonderful idea to Dr. Chung. And thank you for giving me the
> strength of will to follow it.
>
> John

Poor Bob probably had a vascular event upon reading this...

"Socks as far as the eye can see.."

:)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J31722867

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Bob's cross-post to asd noted and refused for my reply.

On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:59:38 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:

>John wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:16:11 +0100, Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>>>
>>>[...]
>>>
>>>>Fwiw, you and I and others know that I freely admit to errors when I make them (especially when
>>>>the error may lead to harm). No, I am not perfect nor do I wish to be. However, God has allowed
>>>>me to be right much more often than wrong. Such righteousness belongs to Him and not to me. The
>>>>glory is all His.
>>>>
>>>>It remains my opinion the greater harm would be to tell someone who is obese that 2 pounds of
>>>>potatoes has only about 800 calories and that for their dieting to lose weight, they can eat
>>>>more than 4 pounds of potatoes and be under a seemingly reasonable 1800-2000 calorie intake
>>>>restriction.
>>>
>>>So your saying that the truth is dangerous?
>>>
>>>>So, yes, I will stick to my assertion that 2 lbs of potatoes is *about* 3600 calories.
>>>
>>>So you prefer untruth over truth.
>>>
>>>>This way, in the worse case scenario of an obese person eating baked potato chips (near zero
>>>>water content), we won't be dealing with a massive 7200+ calorie intake (4+ pounds) that will
>>>>take days of fasting to overcome.
>>>
>>>baked potatoe chips <> potatoes
>>>
>>>You must think us to be fools not to know the difference.
>>>
>>>>Far better still is to skip the calories and just stick with food weights:
>>>>
>>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>>>>
>>>>It's simpler and you know exactly how much you are eating. There is no guessing.
>>>
>>>Yeah, right, I would know how much my food weighs, which is totally irrelevant if I don't take
>>>into account the nutritional value.
>>>
>>>
>>>>With calories, it is more complicated,
>>>
>>>Not _that_ complicated. But of course it requires the ability to look up the calorie content of
>>>a food.
>>>
>>>>and because of variable water content, you never really know how many calories you are eating.
>>>
>>>That's not necessary. A general idea about how much calories you eat is enough.
>>>
>>>>There is simply too much "wiggle" room to sneak in excess calories. And, I am certain that most
>>>>people reading this know how adept obese folks are at taking advantage of any "wiggle" room.
>>>>This is why there are those who hate the 2PD approach... there is no "wiggle" room... and they
>>>>know it.
>>>
>>>Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Eat two pounds of chocolate and you have all the "wiggle" room
>>>you want on your diet. Thorsten
>
>Lightweight "John" is about to show once again why that's so clearly the case. He's going to extend
>Chung's assertions that obese people are stupid, sneaky and somehow deficient in character.

Hardly. It's my understanding that most obese people do NOT have a bodily disease that determines
there obese condition but rather, suffer from an excess of appetite and a deficiency of exercise.
Hence, effective non-surgical solutions to obesity lie primarily in the domain of the will. Maybe
it's not PC to characterise it this way but as an engineer, I prefer to understand the REAL problem
I'm facing rather than the PC version.

>> If facts, logic and truth were available to and used by everyone there would be no obese people.
>> But yet we have obese people so maybe facts logic and truth aren't enough, even if we actually
>> had all the facts we needed.
>
>Start here. "John" says humans aren't logical. "John" says humans don't use facts. Stipulated and
>agreed to. Oh, except for those people who do. And for those who don't always, but do sometimes.
>The rest don't count. Like "John" who is about to show everyone how not to use logic. Or facts.

Humans ignore logic all the time. Reread Bob's post again to see what I mean.

>> The "truth" about potatoes is that the caloric density varies from about 800 kcal/kg to something
>> over 5000 kcal/kg depending on exactly what form of potato is used and how it is prepared and
>> served.
>
>See the brand-new unit that hasn't appeared in this discourse before; the kg? I bet precise "John"
>thinks it ok to just make up stuff, huh...? We'll get back to the numbers in a moment.

Hmmm....the kilogram is brand new? I prefer to work in either the cgs or mks system of units. For
some reason or another caloric values tend to be represented using 100 g as the unit of weight. This
is neither cgs nor mks. Furthermore, 1 kilogram equals 2.20 pounds - within 10% of the daily total
caloric consumption we're talking about in the 2PD diet. So for "convenience" I have expressed
myself in this manner. Are you saying I'm trying to hide something by this?

[major clip]

>"Could Chung be more stupidly obtuse about his own quack dietary claims? Doesn't he claim that 2
>pounds of food per day will be a weight-loss regimen? Can he just not do math?"
>
>> As for the 800 figure - that is for boiled potatoes with nothing added.
> > I don't know anybody who eats potatoes that way.
>
>"John" doesn't know anyone who eats potatoes that way, ergo people don't eat potatoes that way. See
>about the logic?

Show me where the 2PD requires anyone to eat 2 pounds of only a single food type per day.

>And, oh, by the way, does "John" know anybody who eats 2 pounds of potatoes at a time?

I know some obese people. It wouldn't surprise me to see them eat 2 pounds a day of potato-
based foods.

> > The other end of the
>> scale is for a certain kind potato chips. I wonder what the caloric density of an average serving
>> of potatoes that obese people eat might be?
>
>Because obese people are qualitatively different than "John?" They eat differently. But wait. Down
>below, "John" says he's doing the 2PD. Why is that? Is "John" obese? Does that mean he's sneaky,
>stupid and deficient in character, too?

I have never been obese. Been close though. When I started 2PD my BMI was 29. Now it is 28.
And falling.

>> It seems to me that the error in assuming a value of 3600 kcal/kg would likely be much less in
>> error than assuming a value of 800.
>
>Right. And why would that be? Because people can't see the difference between a boiled or baked
>potato and something that cones in a bag? requires too much attention span to determine the
>difference between baked chips and mashed potatoes? And I bet that "John" has forgotten that we're
>talking about 2 whole pounds of potatoes. Or two pounds of potato chips.

No I'm not. I'm talking about caloric DENSITY.

>> If you are eating at home you could read the label on the food package to see what you've been
>> served. If you order potatoes at a restaurant where Bob Pastorio is the chef, what do you get?
>> You don't really don't have any way to know, do you?
>
>The answer is yes, I could tell people what the caloric content of our potato dishes were when I
>had restaurants. We served spuds baked, boiled, roasted, mashed and fried and we prepared them
>according to standard recipes that had been analyzed for nutritional breakdown and served in
>specific portion sizes.
>
>Anybody who carries a WeightWatcher's booklet can determine what they need to know. Virtually
>anyone used to portioning their food by weight or volume - see that, "John" - by weight OR volume,
>after a while can be competent *enough* in estimating appropriate amounts.

With 2PD you don't need no steenkin' booklet.

> > I wonder if Bob can tell us how
>> many calories are in the potato dishes that he serves to his customers? Does he even know? How
>> about a nice candied sweet potato with butter lathered on top?
>
>Asked and answered. We didn't do candied sweet potatoes. Our fare in all my places was rather more
>sophisticated than that.
>
>> Ok, suppose Bob actually knows the caloric density. Now the customer still has to weigh each
>> individual food item on the plate, multiply each weight by the caloric density Bob has supplied
>> and add it up. Does anybody actually do that? Nyaaa. If the food is good (benefit of the doubt to
>> Bob here), they just clean their plates and figure they'll be Spartans tomorrow.
>
>Or, they could ask any server who waited on them. We printed out complete ingredient lists for
>everything on the menu along with nutritive breakdown. Since our portion sizes were standardized,
>the numbers were always very close. That information was available from the early 80's and on, as
>soon as we computerized our operations.

That's very nice, Bob. But these days, everything has been "supersized".

>But it's rather telling how "John" sees the normal behaviors of people. They guess and fudge and
>lie to themselves. I wonder who his references are?

When talking about the obese, that's right, they do lie to themselves. They're (they say) big-boned,
have hyper-efficient digestive systems, are just really hungry today, or just can't resist the pecan
pie/ice cream -- the whole pie.

>> With 2PD, you don't need to know caloric density, just the total weight of everything (that you
>> eat) on the plate. I have found that after a couple of months of weighing my dinner plate at
>> home, I can estimate it with 10% or so by eye and heft. Lots easier. Lots more consistent. No
>> more just cleaning the plate. Success. Happiness.
>
>And here's where poor sappy "John" stumbles and falls. Those two pounds of food in his example, by
>his own reckoning, could be from 800 to 5000 calories. "John" assumes that he's more sincere about
>weighing and then estimating his food intake than someone using another reference like carb
>counting, fat counting, points or any other dietary regimen. That the others will cheat and sneak
>extra in. Or that they're too stupid to do their plan carefully. That "John" has a pure heart and
>an intact mind, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

Do I think you can't cheat on 2PD? Of course not. But I earnestly want to lose weight and I am and
will continue to do so.

>But the biggest flaw is the amount of food with no regard for its composition. Does wacko "John"
>believe that he'll lose weight eating 5000 calories a day? Or 3600 calories a day? Poor sappy
>"John" shows what a fool he is. Again.

What if the man who was blind from birth that Jesus healed had said: "No, thanks, I don't want to be
healed. People are kind to the blind and so I want to stay that way." Would he have been healed
anyway? I don't think so. You have to want to be healed.

>> Thank you Lord for giving this wonderful idea to Dr. Chung. And thank you for giving me the
>> strength of will to follow it.
>
>Funny thing, "John." Perhaps it's a flawed memory on my part, but I don't recall your mentioning
>that you've been doing this "diet." When did you start it? Why? Are you obese? If so, can you be
>trusted to keep to the program? I mean, both you and Chung seem to think that the obese are stupid
>and sneaky. With bad characters.

Is your Google broken?

>I'm not sure why Chung conjures you to do these posts. They surely don't help him any.

I'm not trying to help him - I'm trying to help you, Bob.

John
 
John wrote:

> Bob's cross-post to asd noted and refused for my reply.

Oh, see how humanitarian "John" is? I posted it in ASDL-C for the convenience of the people over
there to see how deeply foolish the 2PD is, how deeply foolish Chung's justifications are and how
much more deeply foolish are the attempts that "John" makes to defend his hero.

For their "convenience," I wanted them to see what Chung thinks of obese people. Apparently the same
that "John" thinks of them. Condescending. Smugly superior.

> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:59:38 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:16:11 +0100, Thorsten Schier <[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>>>>
>>>>[...]
>>>>
>>>>>Fwiw, you and I and others know that I freely admit to errors when I make them (especially when
>>>>>the error may lead to harm). However, God has allowed me to be right much more often than
>>>>>wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>>It remains my opinion the greater harm would be to tell someone who is obese that 2 pounds of
>>>>>potatoes has only about 800 calories and that for their dieting to lose weight, they can eat
>>>>>more than 4 pounds of potatoes and be under a seemingly reasonable 1800-2000 calorie intake
>>>>>restriction.
>>>>
>>>>So your saying that the truth is dangerous?
>>>>
>>>>>So, yes, I will stick to my assertion that 2 lbs of potatoes is *about* 3600 calories.
>>>>
>>>>So you prefer untruth over truth.
>>>>
>>>>>This way, in the worse case scenario of an obese person eating baked potato chips (near zero
>>>>>water content), we won't be dealing with a massive 7200+ calorie intake (4+ pounds) that will
>>>>>take days of fasting to overcome.
>>>>
>>>>baked potatoe chips <> potatoes
>>>>
>>>>You must think us to be fools not to know the difference.
>>>>
>>>>>Far better still is to skip the calories and just stick with food weights:
>>>>>
>>>>>http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>>>>>
>>>>>It's simpler and you know exactly how much you are eating. There is no guessing.
>>>>
>>>>Yeah, right, I would know how much my food weighs, which is totally irrelevant if I don't take
>>>>into account the nutritional value.
>>>>
>>>>>With calories, it is more complicated,
>>>>
>>>>Not _that_ complicated. But of course it requires the ability to look up the calorie content of
>>>>a food.
>>>>
>>>>>and because of variable water content, you never really know how many calories you are eating.
>>>>
>>>>That's not necessary. A general idea about how much calories you eat is enough.
>>>
>>>>>There is simply too much "wiggle" room to sneak in excess calories. And, I am certain that most
>>>>>people reading this know how adept obese folks are at taking advantage of any "wiggle" room.
>>>>>This is why there are those who hate the 2PD approach... there is no "wiggle" room... and they
>>>>>know it.
>>>>
>>>>Sorry, but that is just nonsense. Eat two pounds of chocolate and you have all the "wiggle" room
>>>>you want on your diet. Thorsten
>>
>>Lightweight "John" is about to show once again why that's so clearly the case. He's going to
>>extend Chung's assertions that obese people are stupid, sneaky and somehow deficient in character.
>
> Hardly. It's my understanding that most obese people do NOT have a bodily disease that determines
> there obese condition but rather, suffer from an excess of appetite and a deficiency of exercise.
> Hence, effective non-surgical solutions to obesity lie primarily in the domain of the will.

<LOL> That's exactly the implication of what was written above. Hear the WHOOOOOOOSSH, "John" as the
point passes over your head?

It's precisely what every person who loses weight by any regimen has to accept and do. There's no
magic formula and it certainly isn't anything to do with 2 pounds of anything.

> Maybe it's not PC to characterise it this way but as an engineer, I prefer to understand the REAL
> problem I'm facing rather than the PC version.

And yet as an engineer, you're willing to fall into the trap of equating two different measures that
are essentially irrelevant to each other. You talk about two pounds in one breath and caloric
density in another. If caloric density matters, as you say it does, then weight becomes utterly
irrelevant.

It's like talking about minutes and tons or hectares and volts.

>>>If facts, logic and truth were available to and used by everyone there would be no obese people.
>>>But yet we have obese people so maybe facts logic and truth aren't enough, even if we actually
>>>had all the facts we needed.
>>
>>Start here. "John" says humans aren't logical. "John" says humans don't use facts. Stipulated and
>>agreed to. Oh, except for those people who do. And for those who don't always, but do sometimes.
>>The rest don't count. Like "John" who is about to show everyone how not to use logic. Or facts.
>
> Humans ignore logic all the time. Reread Bob's post again to see what I mean.

<LOL> IKWYABWAI. Best "John" could come up with on short notice.

Isn't it interesting that "John" thinks that "maybe facts logic and truth aren't enough." So "John"
and Chung think it's best to deceive obese people for their own good.

>>>The "truth" about potatoes is that the caloric density varies from about 800 kcal/kg to something
>>>over 5000 kcal/kg depending on exactly what form of potato is used and how it is prepared and
>>>served.
>>
>>See the brand-new unit that hasn't appeared in this discourse before; the kg? I bet precise "John"
>>thinks it ok to just make up stuff, huh...? We'll get back to the numbers in a moment.
>
> Hmmm....the kilogram is brand new?

No, shitwit, the kg isn't a new unit. It's new to the discourse. Anything to cloud the issue,
huh, "John."

> I prefer to work in either the cgs or mks system of units. For some reason or another caloric
> values tend to be represented using 100 g as the unit of weight. This is neither cgs nor mks.
> Furthermore, 1 kilogram equals 2.20 pounds - within 10% of the daily total caloric consumption
> we're talking about in the 2PD diet.

Note the blunder from "John." He says "daily total caloric consumption" rather than "2 pounds of
food." Remember, the basic premise he and Chung are arguing is that caloric consumption is
irrelevant. Ooooops.

Of course caloric values are represented as # of calories per unit of volume. Both are significant
and dependent on each other. One without the other makes no sense. Like pounds without caloric
density. But, remember, "John" says that 2 pounds is all that matters.

Or if he doesn't say that, then the weight instantly becomes irrelevant.

> So for "convenience" I have expressed myself in this manner. Are you saying I'm trying to hide
> something by this?

<LOL> No, "John." I'm saying you have the attention span of a gnat.

> [major clip]
>
>>"Could Chung be more stupidly obtuse about his own quack dietary claims? Doesn't he claim that 2
>>pounds of food per day will be a weight-loss regimen? Can he just not do math?"
>>
>>>As for the 800 figure - that is for boiled potatoes with nothing added. I don't know anybody who
>>>eats potatoes that way.
>>
>>"John" doesn't know anyone who eats potatoes that way, ergo people don't eat potatoes that way.
>>See about the logic?
>
> Show me where the 2PD requires anyone to eat 2 pounds of only a single food type per day.

<LOL> This is called a "non sequitur" because it doesn't follow from what was written before. "John"
said he doesn't know anyone who eats potatoes plain. I pointed out the implications. "John" drags a
red herring across the trail. This is the "John" who says he's an engineer who likes to understand
the REAL problem. HE can't see it, it seems.

>>And, oh, by the way, does "John" know anybody who eats 2 pounds of potatoes at a time?
>
> I know some obese people. It wouldn't surprise me to see them eat 2 pounds a day of potato-
> based foods.

<LOL> "Some of my best friends are obese people." Poor "John." BUt here's the engineer *guessing*
about the activities of people he looks down on. Good engineering, "John." I bet engineers guess all
the time, huh...?

>>>The other end of the scale is for a certain kind potato chips. I wonder what the caloric density
>>>of an average serving of potatoes that obese people eat might be?
>>
>>Because obese people are qualitatively different than "John?" They eat differently. But wait. Down
>>below, "John" says he's doing the 2PD. Why is that? Is "John" obese? Does that mean he's sneaky,
>>stupid and deficient in character, too?
>
> I have never been obese. Been close though. When I started 2PD my BMI was 29. Now it is 28. And
> falling.
>
>>>It seems to me that the error in assuming a value of 3600 kcal/kg would likely be much less in
>>>error than assuming a value of 800.
>>
>>Right. And why would that be? Because people can't see the difference between a boiled or baked
>>potato and something that comes in a bag? requires too much attention span to determine the
>>difference between baked chips and mashed potatoes? And I bet that "John" has forgotten that we're
>>talking about 2 whole pounds of potatoes. Or two pounds of potato chips.
>
> No I'm not. I'm talking about caloric DENSITY.

Funny thing about that. I introduced the idea after Chung blurted out his Great Potato Blunder of
2004. I said that caloric density is not a function of weight. "John" proudly tells us he's doing
the 2PD and, as an engineer, he has found a miraculous way to create an equality between volume and
composition. Bwahahaha

>>>If you are eating at home you could read the label on the food package to see what you've been
>>>served. If you order potatoes at a restaurant where Bob Pastorio is the chef, what do you get?
>>>You don't really don't have any way to know, do you?
>>
>>The answer is yes, I could tell people what the caloric content of our potato dishes were when I
>>had restaurants. We served spuds baked, boiled, roasted, mashed and fried and we prepared them
>>according to standard recipes that had been analyzed for nutritional breakdown and served in
>>specific portion sizes.
>>
>>Anybody who carries a WeightWatcher's booklet can determine what they need to know. Virtually
>>anyone used to portioning their food by weight or volume - see that, "John" - by weight OR volume,
>>after a while can be competent *enough* in estimating appropriate amounts.
>
> With 2PD you don't need no steenkin' booklet.

Nope. You can eat all 5000 calories of baked chips as long as you weigh them. All 4500 calories of
chocolate. With 2PD you need a steenkeen scale and a good steenkeen memory for what else you ate
today. Or do you keep a journal of what you've consumed all day? If not, do you at least write it
down somewhere so you don't forget in the press of daily business? So at 8:30 pm, you remember
clearly how much your breakfast weighed? And that snack at 10:30 with the guys talking about stress
vectors? And lunch when you were talking with the folks from one of your client companies. You
remember the weight of that food? And dinner with family? They ate normal, reasonable portions and
you had to settle for three lettuce leaves because you used up your allotment for the day?

>>>Ok, suppose Bob actually knows the caloric density. Now the customer still has to weigh each
>>>individual food item on the plate, multiply each weight by the caloric density Bob has supplied
>>>and add it up. Does anybody actually do that? Nyaaa. If the food is good (benefit of the doubt to
>>>Bob here), they just clean their plates and figure they'll be Spartans tomorrow.
>>
>>Or, they could ask any server who waited on them. We printed out complete ingredient lists for
>>everything on the menu along with nutritive breakdown. Since our portion sizes were standardized,
>>the numbers were always very close. That information was available from the early 80's and on, as
>>soon as we computerized our operations.
>
> That's very nice, Bob. But these days, everything has been "supersized".

<LOL> Does "John" ever bother to read what he writes? Let me type slowly so he can get it. No matter
what the size of the portion is, if I knew the caloric density per unit volume, it's an arithmetic
issue, not a quantity issue. And that's what would have gone on the server fact sheet.

And what on earth does "supersizing have to do with anything if weight is the only criterion? Eat up
to 2 pounds and stop, goes the mantra. Does engineer "John" get all flustered when dimensions of
something he's working on change? Puhleeze...

>>But it's rather telling how "John" sees the normal behaviors of people. They guess and fudge and
>>lie to themselves. I wonder who his references are?
>
> When talking about the obese, that's right, they do lie to themselves. They're (they say) big-
> boned, have hyper-efficient digestive systems, are just really hungry today, or just can't resist
> the pecan pie/ice cream -- the whole pie.

Hey, "John." Try something here, mr. engineer. Substitute any other word that describes a group for
"obese" in that sentence. Try "engineer." Or maybe "Chinese people." Or maybe "gays." See where it
takes you. SOunds like Chung and Mu talking about Jews or gays as a group, lumping all together into
one package to be contemptuously dismissed.

If they want to lose weight and have the strength of will to do so, they will. If either ingredient
is missing, they won't. That's no more confined to obese people than it is to anyone else. People
who need to leave an abusive spouse. People who need to get a different job. People who need to
control their finances better. People who need to make a change either will or they won't. These
indices have nothing to do with the system employed, it's all about the people using them.

Your answer is to give them flawed information. All the while congratulating yourself on your
superiority and better character. You're as much a fraud as your hero.

>>>With 2PD, you don't need to know caloric density, just the total weight of everything (that you
>>>eat) on the plate. I have found that after a couple of months of weighing my dinner plate at
>>>home, I can estimate it with 10% or so by eye and heft. Lots easier. Lots more consistent. No
>>>more just cleaning the plate. Success. Happiness.

So, according to "John," caloric density isn't important. Then why does he harp on it and mention
it at all?

"John" weighs his dinner plate he says. How about breakfast, lunch, the odd snack. Does he weigh
them? Add up those numbers for the day and stay exact like a good engineer should?

Hey, "John." Here's engineering: measure with a micrometer, mark with chalk, cut with a hatchet.

>>And here's where poor sappy "John" stumbles and falls. Those two pounds of food in his example, by
>>his own reckoning, could be from 800 to 5000 calories.

For some obvious reason, "John" chose to skip over this idea. That the weight is no indicator of
caloric density and caloric content. And that calories, not pounds eaten, determine body weight. Bad
engineering to think that way. It's like saying that 2 pounds of aluminum will replace two pounds of
steel or 2 pounds of nylon and that's all there is to it. Wrong measurement criteria.

"John" assumes that he's more sincere about weighing
>>and then estimating his food intake than someone using another reference like carb counting, fat
>>counting, points or any other dietary regimen. That the others will cheat and sneak extra in. Or
>>that they're too stupid to do their plan carefully. That "John" has a pure heart and an intact
>>mind, all evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.
>
> Do I think you can't cheat on 2PD? Of course not. But I earnestly want to lose weight and I am and
> will continue to do so.

So YOU can earnestly want to lose weight and you are. And you won't cheat. Wonderful. What on earth
makes you believe you're some sort of elite wizard here? Same sort of wacko exclusivity that you
bring to you religious rants. You have *the* truth and no other vision has any merit. Like the way
you drift off to lala land below and preach nonsense instead of answering the questions.

>>But the biggest flaw is the amount of food with no regard for its composition. Does wacko "John"
>>believe that he'll lose weight eating 5000 calories a day? Or 3600 calories a day? Poor sappy
>>"John" shows what a fool he is. Again.
>
> What if the man who was blind from birth that Jesus healed had said: "No, thanks, I don't want to
> be healed. People are kind to the blind and so I want to stay that way." Would he have been healed
> anyway? I don't think so. You have to want to be healed.

"John" seems to drift off into some dreamland where these non-responsive replies somehow are ok.
It's so clear that engineer "John" likes to keep to logic and facts. NOT.

How about stick to topic, "John." Or at least stay in the neighborhood.

>>>Thank you Lord for giving this wonderful idea to Dr. Chung. And thank you for giving me the
>>>strength of will to follow it.
>>
>>Funny thing, "John." Perhaps it's a flawed memory on my part, but I don't recall your mentioning
>>that you've been doing this "diet." When did you start it? Why? Are you obese? If so, can you be
>>trusted to keep to the program? I mean, both you and Chung seem to think that the obese are stupid
>>and sneaky. With bad characters.
>
> Is your Google broken?

No. You're not important enough to use it. I have a hard time remembering the various unbelievable
things you say.
>
>>I'm not sure why Chung conjures you to do these posts. They surely don't help him any.
>
> I'm not trying to help him - I'm trying to help you, Bob.

<LOL> I can see that, "John." No, seriously. It's so clear that by the sheer brilliance of your
discourse that you're going to bring everyone over to your view of things.

Let's see if I can summarize those oh-so-deep ideas you've offered. You can eat two pounds of food a
day and you'll lose weight no matter what it is. Calories don't matter. But caloric density does.
Somehow. For some reason. In some way. But 2 pounds is all that matters. Except for caloric density.
But don't pay any attention to it. Or nutritive composition, either. Only 2 pounds matters.

That about it, "John?"

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

> Poor Bob probably had a vascular event upon reading this...

<LOL> Had a vehicular event. Drove to Wal-mart to see if they had as many socks as Chung.

> "Socks as far as the eye can see.."

They didn't.

Bob
 
John <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Bob's cross-post to asd noted and refused for my reply.
>
> On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:59:38 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> >I'm not sure why Chung conjures you to do these posts. They surely don't help him any.
>
> I'm not trying to help him - I'm trying to help you, Bob.
>
> John

It is ironic that Bob probably cross-posted this to ASD because he feels that he needs help from his
"friends."

Seem that Bob fears you, John.

Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1BB12C67

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

> John <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>Bob's cross-post to asd noted and refused for my reply.
>>
>>On Fri, 20 Feb 2004 02:59:38 -0500, "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
> <snip>
>
>>>I'm not sure why Chung conjures you to do these posts. They surely don't help him any.
>>
>>I'm not trying to help him - I'm trying to help you, Bob.
>
> It is ironic that Bob probably cross-posted this to ASD because he feels that he needs help from
> his "friends."

<LOL> Poor paranoid Chung thinks that everyone is wired like he is. I did it for the "convenience"
of any others who would like to see Chung for what he is. In the unlikely case they haven't already.
And we can't forget "John" even though it's very easy to.

Somebody help Chung with English and give him a definition of "irony." He just exemplifies it. He
doesn't define it all that well.

> Seem that Bob fears you, John.

I tremble whenever "John" posts. Same as when Kermit the Frog comes on tv. Or reruns of the Brady
Bunch. The sheer terror is overwhelming. <LOL> Feeble "John."

> Truth has this effect on the untruthful.

<LOL> Time for some new material. As though the illogical, uninformed and misguided post from "John"
had any truth in it. Poor, desperate chung will take any support from anyone, no matter how shallow
and easily refuted. It's almost as though he'll take 2 pound of support no matter the content. Seems
familiar...

<LOL>

Bob
 
"Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

Poor, desperate
> chung will take any support from anyone, no matter how shallow and easily refuted. It's almost as
> though he'll take 2 pound of support no matter the content. Seems familiar...

Dr Bob,

As far as I am aware Andrew is not selling anything. If it's easily refuted then people simply
won't do it.

Did you know that the Reader's Digest did a study into the effectiveness of diets. Apparently they
are a miserable failure, somewhere around 95% of all diets fail (regardless of who devises them)
They decided to focus on what made the other 5% successful and discovered that they were more likely
to vary their diets i.e. use different tactics for each week cal counting, food combining, WW, Slim
Fast and so on), take up life long exercise plans. I can't remember the other significant changes,
but they were related to 'major' lifestyle change.

Basically, people's genes, situations and habits make them OW.

Andrew is dealing with people who are at their last chance, self esteem and the psychology of eating
is no longer an issue. But for those who are in the 5% it's simply another tactic to help with their
daily struggles, _if_ they chose this route.

BTW, I have no doubt in my mind that I was a nutritionally underfed child, yet I was slightly OW
through childhood. No sweets, chocolate or pop at all, but I had a high fat, high carbohydrate and
low protein existence, mainly because my parents hardly had any money. This is the diet of many
western children today through 'choice' + they eat the added sweets and chocolates too. Yet many
undoubtedly remain slim and this is a puzzle.

Anyone who watches children and how they interact with others can see that whilst some bomb around
others saunter, some chose high taste foods whilst others reject them. Some even eat better because
of their parent's time, wealth or education. Until scientists acknowledge, understand and know how
to change the mechanisms which make these distinguishing differences from birth our weight problems
will never be solved.

There is no ultimate right or wrong on this issue as people simply don't know all the ins and outs
involved, there are only people and their opinions. Having opinions, ideas etc doesn't make Andrew
any less of a doctor any more than having limited foods to cook with would make you any less of a
chef. On balance, it's probably far better for people to be OW, accepted, happy and die earlier,
than be miserable because their weight is ruling their life.

Weight is simply a finger print, an identity and the makeup of humanity, it's also part of its love
and warmth too. It's no accident that happy homes also have a well dressed tables in their center
and that the table is the focus of festivities. It's the work of Satan to identify it as a weakness
in ourselves. He manipulates the generations and he uses it to taunt people and divide them. Any
potential division in any walk of life is an open door for evil forces.

Listen Bob to the true importance and mystery of ourselves. You will be gone and you will be changed
from what you are now.

" And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly
Man. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does
corruption inherit incorruption Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall
all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will
sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this corruptible must
put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this corruptible has put on
incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that
is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O Death, where is your sting? O Hades, where is
your victory?" The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the law. But thanks be to God,
who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." NKJ 1Cr
15:49-57

Carol T
 
Carol T wrote:

> "Bob (this one)" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
>
> Poor, desperate
> > chung will take any support from anyone, no matter how shallow and easily refuted. It's almost
> > as though he'll take 2 pound of support no matter the content. Seems familiar...
>
> Dr Bob,
>

You probably meant "dear" :)

>
> As far as I am aware Andrew is not selling anything.

Correct.

> If it's easily refuted then people simply won't do it.
>

Perhaps.

>
> Did you know that the Reader's Digest did a study into the effectiveness of diets. Apparently they
> are a miserable failure, somewhere around 95% of all diets fail (regardless of who devises them)

95% of those folks enrolled in the diets they looked at. The 2PD approach was not part of
that study.

> They decided to focus on what made the other 5% successful and discovered that they were more
> likely to vary their diets i.e. use different tactics for each week cal counting, food combining,
> WW, Slim Fast and so on), take up life long exercise plans. I can't remember the other significant
> changes, but they were related to 'major' lifestyle change.
>
> Basically, people's genes, situations and habits make them OW.
>

Would have to disagree here, Carol.

You won't find obesity among the long-term residents of prison-camps.

>
> Andrew is dealing with people who are at their last chance, self esteem and the psychology of
> eating is no longer an issue. But for those who are in the 5% it's simply another tactic to help
> with their daily struggles, _if_ they chose this route.
>

The alternative is bariatric surgery, which is a known proven "cure."

This surgery does not alter genes, metabolism, food composition or psychology.

It does limit the volume that a person can ingest comfortably at any one meal.

This is what the 2PD approach simulates... without the surgery.

>
> BTW, I have no doubt in my mind that I was a nutritionally underfed child, yet I was slightly OW
> through childhood. No sweets, chocolate or pop at all, but I had a high fat, high carbohydrate and
> low protein existence, mainly because my parents hardly had any money.

Hardship does compel many to overeat.

> This is the diet of many western children today through 'choice' + they eat the added sweets and
> chocolates too. Yet many undoubtedly remain slim and this is a puzzle.

Current trend is that most won't remain that way as they grow older into adulthood.

>
>
> Anyone who watches children and how they interact with others can see that whilst some bomb around
> others saunter, some chose high taste foods whilst others reject them. Some even eat better
> because of their parent's time, wealth or education. Until scientists acknowledge, understand and
> know how to change the mechanisms which make these distinguishing differences from birth our
> weight problems will never be solved.
>
> There is no ultimate right or wrong on this issue as people simply don't know all the ins and outs
> involved, there are only people and their opinions. Having opinions, ideas etc doesn't make Andrew
> any less of a doctor any more than having limited foods to cook with would make you any less of a
> chef. On balance, it's probably far better for people to be OW, accepted, happy and die earlier,
> than be miserable because their weight is ruling their life.
>
>
> Weight is simply a finger print, an identity and the makeup of humanity, it's also part of its
> love and warmth too. It's no accident that happy homes also have a well dressed tables in their
> center and that the table is the focus of festivities.

The fellowship should be the focus rather than the table, imho.

> It's the work of Satan to identify it as a weakness in ourselves.

It is not good to judge it as a weakness in others for we all have this weakness.

Remember what Jesus said to Satan when he tempted Him with bread when He was hungry.

> He manipulates the generations and he uses it to taunt people and divide them.

Satan does tempt people with food.

> Any potential division in any walk of life is an open door for evil forces.
>

Sin divides us from God.

>
> Listen Bob to the true importance and mystery of ourselves. You will be gone and you will be
> changed from what you are now.
>

Yes, we will all die. Whether our souls will also perish is up to us.

>
> " And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly
> Man. Now this I say, brethren, that flesh and blood cannot inherit the kingdom of God; nor does
> corruption inherit incorruption Behold, I tell you a mystery: We shall not all sleep, but we shall
> all be changed-- in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet
> will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed. For this
> corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality. So when this
> corruptible has put on incorruption, and this mortal has put on immortality, then shall be brought
> to pass the saying that is written: "Death is swallowed up in victory." "O Death, where is your
> sting? O Hades, where is your victory?" The sting of death is sin, and the strength of sin is the
> law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ." NKJ 1Cr
> 15:49-57
>
> Carol T

Yes, the praises all belong to God :)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1BB12C67

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On Sat, 21 Feb 2004 14:52:48 GMT, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>Sin divides us from God.

...............

Then you, Dr. Chung, have a huge problem. For you are an unrepentant sinner. You have violated the
8th Commandment and have expressed not one whit of remorse.

smn
 
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Carol T wrote:

> You probably meant "dear" :)

Maybe my thoughts were with matters of others self esteem and feelings, as they often are.

>>>>>>>>>> 95% of those folks enrolled in the diets they looked at.
The 2PD approach was not part of that study.<<<<<<<<<<<

No, their study was some time back. However, it's not the diets that really fail, it's human nature
that fails the diets :eek:( Most importantly they looked at why the long term successes had worked, so
often not done.

> Would have to disagree here, Carol.<<<<<<<<<

That's OK.

>>>>>>>>> You won't find obesity among the long-term residents of
prison-camps.<<<<<<<<<<

No, you don't find ample food there either, marketing monopolies or happiness. Forced restriction
does guarantee weight reduction (my father's father died in a POW camp of malnutrition so I can
testify to that). However, if people survive, when the restrictions are lifted many people become OW
again. Middle aged people who have left the forces spring to my mind as I have recently had a
conversation with someone hankering after his old self from army days. If the army, airforce or
navy's diets and way of life work so well through restriction, how come they fail people later on?
Other factors at play too, certainly psychological.

> The alternative is bariatric surgery, which is a known proven "cure."<<<<<<<<<<<

True, I often wonder if what is most barbaric about it is that it's left so long for some people.
Although, it is a forced cure, similar to prison camp diet and the restrictions of the forces. If
the band or stapling is removed from the stomach has the problem gone?

To me relearning portion sizes for weight loss seems sensible enough. I don't see it as Bob does,
sorry Bob.

> Hardship does compel many to overeat.<<<<<<<<<

I don't know, I was very active because I danced and swam competitively for the county. Therefore I
was often 'very' hungry with no proteins, only bread as a filler, which I liked 'a lot'. Getting
over hungry makes people eat a lot more than they would if their hunger was regulated. Experiencing
it as a child is not perhaps the best way to learn about life long food intake habits.

>>>>>> The fellowship should be the focus rather than the table,
imho.<<<<<<<,

I enjoy focus on fellowship too, but all over the world the table is the focus of culture, life,
family, fun and even faith. Some people believe that eating and keeping food at the table, along
with rituals before the food, also help to keep people slim. TV dinners and on the move snacking,
both encouraged by profiteering, has destroyed the value of coming together for meals. People are
ending up in a yo-yo of over eating and then restricting foods, so they are not learning to eat
normally i.e. normal quantities at same time each.

>>>>>>> Yes, the praises all belong to God :)<<<<<<<<

Definitely.

Carol T
 
Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

>>>>>>>>> Then you, Dr. Chung, have a huge problem. For you are an
unrepentant
> sinner. You have violated the 8th Commandment and have expressed not one whit of
> remorse.<<<<<<<<<<<<

Stephen be as Aaron and find your lamb that is worthy of God. If you cannot do this accept Christ as
your Saviour and confess your sins, for He bears our iniquities with His blood. Who else has done
this great thing for you and your children?

"Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities of
the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them on
the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man. The
goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release the
goat in the wilderness. "Then Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of meeting, shall take off the
linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there."
Leviticus 16: 21-23

Carol T
 
On 22 Feb 2004 05:31:52 -0800, [email protected] (Carol T) wrote:

>Stephen be as Aaron ...

...............

Thank you for your straightforward response.

smn
 
[email protected] (Carol T) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>
> >>>>>>>>> Then you, Dr. Chung, have a huge problem. For you are an
> unrepentant
> > sinner. You have violated the 8th Commandment and have expressed not one whit of
> > remorse.<<<<<<<<<<<<
>
> Stephen be as Aaron and find your lamb that is worthy of God. If you cannot do this accept Christ
> as your Saviour and confess your sins, for He bears our iniquities with His blood. Who else has
> done this great thing for you and your children?
>
>
> "Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities
> of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them
> on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable man.
> The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall release
> the goat in the wilderness. "Then Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of meeting, shall take off
> the linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave them there."
> Leviticus 16: 21-23
>
> Carol T

That would be hard (if not impossible) for Stephen, since he has blasphemed God by his writing that
"Jesus is no more the Messiah than Elvis Presley" (http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B623B67.

Along Stephen's line of thinking, a sinner who has accepted Christ as his/her Lord and Savior is an
"unrepentant" sinner. So why should he accept Christ as his Savior if he does not believe that
Christ can forgive all his sins?

Moreover, it seems to be Stephen's view that those who would be true witnesses against him are
violating God's 8th commandment. The untruthful tend to deny the truth.

Again, only Christ, who is the truth, can save him.

For this, he remains in my prayers.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?G5EF42A77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867
 
On 22 Feb 2004 11:50:30 -0800, [email protected] (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) wrote:

>That would be hard (if not impossible) for Stephen, since he has blasphemed God by his writing that
>"Jesus is no more the Messiah than Elvis Presley" (http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B623B67.
>
>Along Stephen's line of thinking, a sinner who has accepted Christ as his/her Lord and Savior is an
>"unrepentant" sinner. So why should he accept Christ as his Savior if he does not believe that
>Christ can forgive all his sins?

................

Chung, you are right - I do not believe that Christ can forgive my sins.

And I do not believe that He can forgive yours, either.

But that's really not the point.

The point is that in filing a false police report that stated I was stalking you (when such was not
the case) is a violation of the VIIIth Commandment. You are clearly unrepentant in that regard ...
and guess what? Those are God's Ten Commandments - and only God (not His Son) can forgive you for
violating them. Moreover, since you have expressed no remorse for your lies (and - in fact -
compounded the problem by also lying to the Georgia Medical Board), your place in heaven is not by
any means secure.

You are in more trouble than you could ever imagine.

smn
 
[email protected] (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> [email protected] (Carol T) wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
> > Stephen Nagler <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:<[email protected]>...
> >
> >
> > >>>>>>>>> Then you, Dr. Chung, have a huge problem. For you are an
> unrepentant
> > > sinner. You have violated the 8th Commandment and have expressed not one whit of
> > > remorse.<<<<<<<<<<<<
> >
> > Stephen be as Aaron and find your lamb that is worthy of God. If you cannot do this accept
> > Christ as your Saviour and confess your sins, for He bears our iniquities with His blood. Who
> > else has done this great thing for you and your children?
> >
> >
> > "Aaron shall lay both his hands on the head of the live goat, confess over it all the iniquities
> > of the children of Israel, and all their transgressions, concerning all their sins, putting them
> > on the head of the goat, and shall send it away into the wilderness by the hand of a suitable
> > man. The goat shall bear on itself all their iniquities to an uninhabited land; and he shall
> > release the goat in the wilderness. "Then Aaron shall come into the tabernacle of meeting, shall
> > take off the linen garments which he put on when he went into the Holy Place, and shall leave
> > them there." Leviticus 16: 21-23
> >
> > Carol T
>
>
> That would be hard (if not impossible) for Stephen, since he has blasphemed God by his writing
> that "Jesus is no more the Messiah than Elvis Presley" (http://makeashorterlink.com/?J1B623B67.
>
> Along Stephen's line of thinking, a sinner who has accepted Christ as his/her Lord and Savior is
> an "unrepentant" sinner. So why should he accept Christ as his Savior if he does not believe that
> Christ can forgive all his sins?
>
> Moreover, it seems to be Stephen's view that those who would be true witnesses against him are
> violating God's 8th commandment. The untruthful tend to deny the truth.

And, as God has reminded me, His 8th commandment is:

"Thou shalt not steal."

And so, Stephen is off-base on multiple counts.

Moreover, he has violated God's 9th commandment by bearing "false witness" about my violating God's
8th commandment.

To paraphase his own words, Stephen is in "more trouble than he can possibly imagine".

For it is written in Exodus 20:

1 And God spake all these words, saying, 2 I am the LORD thy God, which have brought thee out
of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. 3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me. 4
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven
above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. 5 Thou shalt
not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting
the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that
hate me; 6 And shewing mercy unto thousands of them that love me, and keep my commandments. 7
Thou shalt not take the name of the LORD thy God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him
guiltless that taketh his name in vain. 8 Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. 9 Six days
shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: 10 But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy
God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor
thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates: 11 For in six days
the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day:
wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it. 12 Honour thy father and thy
mother: that thy days may be long upon the land which the LORD thy God giveth thee. 13 Thou
shalt not kill. 14 Thou shalt not commit adultery. 15 Thou shalt not steal. 16 Thou shalt not
bear false witness against thy neighbour. 17 Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou
shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor
his ass, nor any thing that is thy neighbour's.

> Again, only Christ, who is the truth, can save him.
>
> For this, he remains in my prayers.

God is great.

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

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

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?W1F522557

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?T13943F77

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?N69721867