Hey, everybody, please read what Chung writes. See if you can make any
sense of his obfuscations, distortion, fanaticism, confusion,
bafflements and outright lying. He starts the crosspost and he
encourages you to report me to my ISP because it's crossposted. What
splendid mental acuity, huh?
He's a cardiologist who claims to be a man of science. He demonstrates
otherwise. Thought you'd all like to see how an expensive education
can be wasted.
Note his fanciful definition of trolling. Note how he refers to
himself in the 3rd person. Note how he has "testimonials" on his web
site that demolish his wonderfully silly 2PoundDiet.
Chung says that if you confine your consumption to 2 pounds of food
per day, you'll lose weight and somehow magically when you arrive at
your ideal weight, you'll reach some sort of abracadabra equilibrium
and stay at your ideal weight. And you don't really have to worry
about what you eat, he says, just use common sense, whatever that
means. He thinks that because he's been trolling various NG's about
it, that doctors know about his hilarious diet and will counsel their
patients in how to use it most effectively. Or something. He claims
that he's qualified to counsel patients on matters of nutrition
because he's a doctor.
He usually likes to sign off with "Humbly" or "God's humble
bond-servant" while parading his pure, wacko brand of Christianity.
Here he moderated it to "Sincerely" perhaps so you'd think he wasn't
such a spacer.
Amazing display he puts on...
To catch the unexpurgated Chung show, check in at sci.med.cardiology.
Or visit his web site and be sure to sign up for his chat room.
------------------------
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Bob Pastorio wrote in message ...
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
Thorsten Schier wrote
No one knows the truth ...
Thorsten
Except those who know Jesus Christ.
From John 14:
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one
comes to the Father except through me..."
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
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. Try another source. There isn't one. You either
believe or not, and no amount of cajoling and exhorting generates
faith. There are no proofs for faith. There are no rational
justifications. You either believe or not.
Chung makes the fatal error of equating faith with knowledge. Of
equating belief with fact. Of equating *his* belief with absolute
truth all the while ignoring vast portions of the bible that are
inconvenient to his hubris. He equates the arrogance of his
exclusionary belief with humility, defying all rational definition of
"faith" and "humility."
All fanatics believe themselves to have an exclusive grasp on truth.
All fundamentalists believe they have an exclusive pipeline to god.
All propagandists believe that if they shout loudly enough or repeat
themselves enough that all will be convinced and converted.
All egotists believe that anyone who doesn't agree with them is
foolish and generally inferior to them.
All True Believers believe that their faith covers everything about
everything and that they KNOW what is proper and what isn't out to
100% of all issues and questions.
The True Believers also believe that anything they do in their
perverse understanding of their "cause" is acceptable. That nothing is
immoral or unethical in the cause of their religion, their faith. That
any harm and any inconvenience caused to others is acceptable because
it's for a noble cause. They may say anything, imply anything, slander
and libel anyone, distort and dissemble, even outright lie to gain
ascendancy and remain atop that moral high ground. It's the madness of
the terrorist, the nullity of the martyr.
That True Believer has one fatal flaw. His belief is so
all-encompassing that it cannot have, must not have, any flaws. His
belief is finally fragile because it must be absolute or all of it
falls. So the TB cannot grant even the smallest point to anyone who
doesn't agree with him. He cannot offer true compassion to anyone who
doesn't agree with him 100% He cannot indicate any unsurety in his
belief. The TB is, finally, a fraud because of the enormous distance
and cognitive dissonance between action and words. The truly sad part
of it is that the TB has no idea of his weakness and frailty. No idea
of his appearance of folly and dishonesty. No idea that his relentless
hypocrisy is his own strongest opponent and most strident critic.
What a profoundly sad waste.
Pastorio
You are such a theological expert, Mr. Pastorio.
How did you come to hate Christ so much?
Is it because you love food so much?
So much so that you would sacrifice your health to it and develop
coronary disease?
You still have my pity, my love, and my forgiveness, neighbor.
FYI Note: Because the author of the message is a rec.food.cooking
subscriber (per Google), I have added RFC for his convenience. If you
are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions:
(1) Yell at Bob
(2) Report Bob to his ISP
(3) Killfile this thread.
(4) Killfile me.
(5) Read about free speech.
This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which
is described completely at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the
Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has
been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community
service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen
from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of
Himself to better the health of folks He touched:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp
From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are
vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated
Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and
have lost the argument soundly at every point:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp
These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this
discussion thread(s).
However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the
argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2
pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be
"if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the
messenger."
Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll"
is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no
redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting
"flame" wars.
These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the
following observations were made:
(1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously.
(2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting
the discussion(s).
(a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the
2PD to achieve near-ideal weight.
(b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when
their weight becomes near-ideal.
(c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc
(3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s).
(4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive).
(5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line
(including jpegs of the actual diplomas).
Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have
tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they
were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp
When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements,
the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed
louder in support of their fallen hero.
Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either
actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they
are, using the on-line third-party resources at:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp
where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and
libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily
debunked.
Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning
the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack):
(1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or
accountability).
(2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory
characters.
(3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to
deliver one-sided insults.
(4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by
cross-posting.
(5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the
2PD or its author.
and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file.
It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to
speed.
It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD
above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery.
Sincerely,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com