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

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

(6) Don't cross-post: it is considered quite rude especially when off-topic.
(7) Keep your flame wars to email. Nobody else cares.

Never argue with an idiot: he will drag you down to his level and then
beat you with experience.

Heed that advice, Bob. Look what you got yourself into.

--
John Gaughan
http://www.johngaughan.net/

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 15:42:42 -0500, Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
(in message ) :

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.

Outrageous, even for you, Chung. You are losing whatever touch you had
with reality.

This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD)

No, it's not related at all. However, since you insist on making it
so, as a public service I will add:

I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for
Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to
carry a scale around.

Following Dr. Chung's scientific approach, as described on his website,
in 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian
Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers
consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet
of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I
think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more
than adequate for us non-climbing folks.

So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my
neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to
measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their
mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What
I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet
of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body
weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3
feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one
month.

My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer
because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese
friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the
ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6
inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements.

So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest
dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day.
That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates.
Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your
thumb to measure.

I am making this diet available as a public service and without
compensation.

If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and
substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be
simpler?

Sincerely,

God's Other Humble Servant

Steve

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

In article , Bob Pastorio
wrote:


He's a cardiologist

It's not easy to be a cardiologist. You have to be very smart, attend
lots of school and serve time at low pay.

On the other hand, it's very easy on the internet to *claim* that you are
a doctor. I'm a little skeptical any time somebody claims to be a doctor
on the internet. Especially when they are obvious wackos.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS

(Dan Abel) wrote:

... I'm a little skeptical any time somebody claims to be a doctor
on the internet. Especially when they are obvious wackos.

I'm not offering to take part in the main discussion, but experience
of life has taught me that many doctors are wackos, so I wouldn't
regard the last point as a clincher.

--
Dr. P. Breathnach

Padraig Breathnach wrote:
(Dan Abel) wrote:


... I'm a little skeptical any time somebody claims to be a doctor
on the internet. Especially when they are obvious wackos.


I'm not offering to take part in the main discussion, but experience
of life has taught me that many doctors are wackos, so I wouldn't
regard the last point as a clincher.

--
Dr. P. Breathnach

I agree; especially psychiatrists.

Richard

--
"..A census taker once tried to test me. I ate his liver with some fava
beans and a nice chianti..."

Hannibal "The Cannibal"

Silence Of The Lambs 1991

Bob Pastorio wrote in message ...
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?

You are what you eat.
Chung must eat 2 lbs. of nuts a day.


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

Dan Abel wrote:

In article , Bob Pastorio
wrote:

He's a cardiologist

It's not easy to be a cardiologist. You have to be very smart, attend
lots of school and serve time at low pay.

On the other hand, it's very easy on the internet to *claim* that you are
a doctor. I'm a little skeptical any time somebody claims to be a doctor
on the internet. Especially when they are obvious wackos.


I have personally met cardiologists who are wacko. My favourite was the one
who wasn't aware his wife had checked the wrong box on a blood donation for
her own surgery. When the blood wasn't "released" by the blood bank, he
assumed she had some terrible disease, stormed down there, demanded this that
and the other, so upset as to be incoherent to anyone not aware of the
situation, and so terrified a secretary she thought he was a madmad off the
street and called 911.
And then there was the one who got a subungal hemorrhage (read: painful
collection of blood under the fingernail). He fainted when they drained it,
and looked so pale and out of it, someone did an EKG (this was in an ER).
Well, the EKG had changes possibly indicating an inferior wall MI some time
in the past (i.e. Q waves in II, III, and F). He looked at his EKG, after he
woke up, and fainted dead away, again and wouldn't leave the ER until someone
broke the lock on the echo room and he did an echocardiogram on himself and
saw that inferior wall move.
Then there was the guy who always screamed that the nurses "bought their
degrees" (weren't really nurses, they were so incompetant) during every cath.

The one who informed a family their father was "toast" (good as dead).
The one who strangled an intern, a very good one, I might add.
The one who became so outraged about other doctor's care on our teaching
rounds, he would make us all pause while he wrote them an angry note, then
decide "they weren't worth it" and tear it up, moving onto the next patient
and starting all over again. (The was the cardiologist who invented the term
"pre-load" and was a very high mucky-muck).
The one who thought that they ought to put Beta-blockers in the water to make
all the hysterical women less hysterical.
And the one who kept three buckets of disinfectant in his trunk, and whenever
he left the hospital, he'd open his trunk and dip his hands, sequentially,
into the buckets. If you were riding with him, he would graciously insist
you, too, dip away before getting in his car.
blacksalt

"Bob Pastorio" wrote in message
...
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.

His license is up for renewal soon. I recommend that you and others contact
the regulatory board and give them information about his behavior. This
person should not even be allowed to be a dog catcher or a piano player in a
whorehouse let alone a licensed physician. I am beginning to understand the
number of malpractice law suits. Apparently the medical profession does not
do a very good job of policing their own.

"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:

"Bob Pastorio" wrote in message
...
colorful display of pathological obsessive compulsive behavior snipped

His license is up for renewal soon.

If you consider 12/31/2005 soon.

I recommend that you and others contact
the regulatory board and give them information about his behavior.

That would help me get your names and addresses :-)

This
person should not even be allowed to be a dog catcher or a piano player in a
whorehouse let alone a licensed physician.

The above speaks to your bias and membership to the peanut gallery.

I am beginning to understand the
number of malpractice law suits.

Lots of folks in the peanut gallery.

Apparently the medical profession does not
do a very good job of policing their own.

Some would say the solution would be to not treat those in the peanut gallery.

FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because
the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the
header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this
message, a few suggestions:

(1) Yell at Paul
(2) Report Paul 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

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

"Paul E. Lehmann" wrote:

His license is up for renewal soon.

If you consider 12/31/2005 soon.

I recommend that you and others contact
the regulatory board and give them information about his behavior.

That would help me get your names and addresses :-)

Would it be a logical assumption that you want these names to do harm
of some sort? Is there a threat implicit in this comment of yours? Why
would you need these names and addresses? What will you do with them?
How will you try to hurt the people who criticize you? What harm do
you plan on inflicting on the people who see your lunacy for what it is?

Why else would you need these names?

Pastorio

Bob Pastorio wrote:

Would it be a logical assumption that you want these names to do harm of
some sort? Is there a threat implicit in this comment of yours? Why
would you need these names and addresses? What will you do with them?
How will you try to hurt the people who criticize you? What harm do you
plan on inflicting on the people who see your lunacy for what it is?


How do you keep getting yourself into these predicaments?

~john!



--
Say hello to the rug's topography...It holds quite a lot of interest
with your face down on it...

Nine out of ten dentists agree that "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
wrote in
...


Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A
"troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity


No.

--
gekko

I used to be indecisive . . . now I'm not so sure.

In article , Richard Periut
wrote:


(Dan Abel) wrote:


... I'm a little skeptical any time somebody claims to be a doctor
on the internet. Especially when they are obvious wackos.


It's quite possible that there's some real Dr.
Whatever who's having a trick played on him here.

Hmmm. Him, or her?


One of each. There appear to be at least two legitimate MDs posting to
this group, one of whom I've met in person at a cookin.

--
Dan Abel
Sonoma State University
AIS