Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Matti Narkia wrote:
>>"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"<[email protected]> wrote
>>
>>>Larry Blanchard wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <[email protected]>, [email protected] says...
>>>>
>>>>>This is a wonderful essay in self-referential exposition. A perfect
>>>>>example of begging the question. Using the subject as definition of
>>>>>the subject. "The bible is true because it's the word of god." Right.
>>>>>But first you have to prove that it's the word of god without quoting
>>>>>the book itself.
>>>>
>>>>Excellent post!
>>>>
>>>
>>>It does prove that God has given us free will. Even to libelers like Mr.
>>>Pastorio (http://www.heartmdphd.asp/libel.asp)
>>>
>>
>>The American Heritage® Dictionary defines the noun "libel" as follows:
>>
>> NOUN: 1a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs,
>> or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The
>> act of presenting such material to the public.
>>
>> 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an
>> action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court.
>>
>>Where can we find a _false_ publication by Mr. Pastorio that damages your
>>reputation?
>
> See the links at:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
Why don't we do that? The first pretty blue link on the page says,
"You're a quack in Atlanta..." Notice those three dots at the end of
his quote? They mean that he omitted something from a full quotation.
Here's where it actually appears:
Chung says this after being showed that the Everest climbers did not
live on 10 pounds of food per week:
> I am waiting for those Everest climbers to email me that
> refutation...
Pastorio says:
One takes no notice of mosquitos. You are beneath their observation.
You mean less than a change of socks to them. Why should they even
bother to notice you? You're a quack in Atlanta and they have real
lives that use reason and intelligence. By contrast.
I bet they haven't bothered to refute that guy on the late news who
says that UFOs took him away and put him on top of Everest and later
brought him back. Same level of intelligence and integrity.
<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>
The next quote on that web page is: "What a fraud."
Here's the exchange that generated that:
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" wrote:
>
> Bob Pastorio <[email protected]> wrote
> > Same old same old. For weight loss, prisoners of war do just
fine. > > They all lose weight. And it only takes years to get them
back to
> > health.
>
> Last I checked, POWs get less than 2PD.
Why am I skeptical that you checked anything? What a fraud.
I mean you couldn't be bothered to check what those mountain climbers
were eating and they were the reason for your "epiphany" about how the
whole world should live. Some guy have some hard, dry food and the
lightbulb goes off over your head. "Eureka," you shout, "It's *THE*
answer to all mankind's ills. Just eat like those guys do."
Your calculations about rehydration were pure and simple nonsense.
Your "guess" that not much rehydration was going on was even more
silly. Both the marks of a person who has never eaten freeze-dried
survival provisions.
<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>
The next quote is so badly misrepresented that it, all by itself, is
enough reason to call a liar and deliberate deceiver.
Here's what Chung put on the web site:
We know Mr. Pastorio is doing it willfully because on 7/25/2003 when
asked whether he thought it wise to libel/defame Dr. Chung, he wrote:
"Yes, I do."
<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>
Here's what was actually said.
> Chef Pastorio wrote:
>
> "... You're a quack in Atlanta ..."
>
> http://groups.google.com/[email protected]
>
> Do you think writing that was wise, Chef Pastorio?
Yes, I do.
When the long string of your behaviors leads to that same conclusion
from many people who post in the groups I see you in, the consensus
has a bit of force. When simple logic either escapes you or you
deliberately evade it or you outright lie (as you did when you tried
to assert that I said POWs ate more than 2 pounds of food a day), then
your image certainly isn't that of a responsible scientist dealing in
facts. Your posting URLs in "support" of your silly 2PoundDiet that
were irrelevant to any of your contentions makes you look less than
diligent. The "testimonials" on your web site that aren't anything of
the sort can logically give rise to the idea that perhaps you take
superficial views of all that's up there. The net effect is to be
forced to question a good deal about your focus, your understanding of
the scientific method, and the logic of scientific exploration.
Your ever-changing explanation about teh food the Everest climbers had
makes it look like the "diet" must be defended no matter the method
and no matter the truth.
Are you a competent doctor? I have no direct experience I can base an
opinion on, so I haven't gone there. But your persona online can be
fairly criticized for a lot of what seem to be less than honest
postings.
Your smarmy innuendo that I use illegal mushrooms is another one. That
casts me in a bad light of being a drug user and breaking the law, and
you made it up whole cloth merely to throw out damaging aspersions and
win "points" for yourself. Calling me "chef" with a tone that implied
it's somehow disreputable or dishonorable to be one is another. Using
that as a title with teh implications that it meant a limited
education is another. Maybe shift around to demonstrate the purity of
your heart and call me "writer" or "father of 4" or "international
traveller" or "speaker of many languages" or "consultant" or "food
manufacturer" or "all-around good egg." Your intent with your sneering
tone has been to denigrate me. That's fine. But when you get it back,
your whining is ludicrous.
Chung, your threats are the hollow echoes of an empty barrel. You have
offered exactly teh same sorts of what you say are libelous statements
in the course of your many posts. It would be good if you examined
your own words and works. And your concurrence with the scurrilous
postings of your shadow Mu. Silence is assent under those
circumstances. You speak with him and let him speak for you. Innocent?
The person without sin casting the first stone? No.
Pastorio
<<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>>>
And the most egregious bit of oily dishonesty, the attempt to create
an impression of some sort of justification for "investigating" me.
The single most telling bit of used-car smarminess; this link:
Click here if you are involved in investigating Mr. Pastorio.
<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>
There is nothing I have said that is false in any of the pieces
offered by Chung as evidence that I did post such falsities. The
greater fact is that he has lied both by commission and omission in
this web page of his.
>>A publication, which damages your reputation, but is not
>>false, is not a libel.
>
> Mr. Pastorio's claims and statements are blatantly false to the most casual
> observer.
Not a chance. There is no *proof* that anything I've said is untrue.
No more proof for that than for the 2PD or Chung's wacko al-qaida
brand of fundamentalist christianity.
Chung's statements above, on the page and on the rest of web site are
very often simply lies, to any observer, casual or studious. Check out
the "testimonials" that he picked up from the net and used without
asking anyone if he could use them.
>>If you cannot point out such a _false_ publication, you may by definition
>>yourself be guilty of libel.
>
> See above.
Indeed, See above. And hear the rolling thunder of demolition of
Chung's spurious claims.
Pastorio
