Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > Vicki Beausoleil wrote:
> > > > <snip>
> > > > > > Chung's the troll
> > > > >
> > > > > Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Dr. Chung, you really gotta tone down that persecution complex.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >
> > That's a nice, empty phrase you keep repeating. Ask anyone, and they
> > will tell you they choose to write truthfully as well.
>
> That is not what I discern.
Sigh. I guess that's your fortune-cookie way of saying 'I don't
believe you."
So, go ahead. Ask someone in this NG at random, "do you choose to
write truthfully"? Chances are overwhleming anyone you ask at random
will say yes. It's an empty phrase, much like a politician saying, "I
am against crime," or "I am for lower taxes."
>
> > Anyways, you're papering over the obvious here - you decided to take
> > the term "troll," as it was applied to you, as purely an insult.
>
> It remains my choice to turn the other cheek.
It's your choice to turn your cheek, turn off your brain, whatever
you like.
>
> > My
> > advice is look for the truth in that statement.
>
> It would be like looking for the truth in satan.
Look, I don't speak your lingo, but let me see if I can try - it
isn't Satanic to be willing to examine your own flaws. What's Satanic
is you completely denying yourself the opportunity to engage in a
little self-reflection, and perversely using religious fervor to do it.
Your religion isn't supposed to blind you to people around you.
You frequently behave on this newsgroup like an annoying
attention-hound. You've been rude and short with people, but at the
same time you seem to have the attitude that your religiousity should
cut you a break. You seem to have the uncanny ability to take any
thread off-topic. People call you on stuff like this.
My suggestion to you is that if you do that tiresome,
oh-I'm-so-persecuted ouch-cheek thing everytime someone calls you on
it, you lose a marvelous opportunity to actually, well, LEARN
SOMETHING. But God's on your side, so you don't have to worry about
stuff like, well, self-reflection, right?
>
> > You're doing yourself
> > and these newsgroup participants a disservice by not doing do.
>
> That would be your opinion.
Yes, this is all my opinion. And, I could be wrong.
(You should try saying that sometime).
>
> > > > Vicki
> > > > describes you as a 'troll' because that's the best description for what
> > > > you do on these NGs... and yes, that's my (and many other's opinion).
> > >
> > > Thankfully, Google serves well to testify on which side of the truth you
> > > stand.
> >
> > Since Google is merely the name of a search engine and a Newsgroups
> > outlet, I have no idea what you're talking about.
>
> Google is also an archive.
... and as an archive, search engine, and a newsgroup outlet, it
(google) isn't in a position to "testify" as to whether a description
fits you best or not. In the service of modelling humble and
intellectually honest behavior for you, I will concede to you - it's
not really a question of truth, it's a matter of opinion (e.g. whether
you are a troll or not). I'm convinced you are. You're convinced you're
not.
>
> > Regardless, again,
> > please keep in mind that the term "troll" is both pejorative and
> > descriptive (for example, something like "****ing asshole" and "twerp"
> > would be purely pejorative). Your focus on the pejorative connotations
> > (as opposed to the descriptive connotations) of the word "troll" as it
> > was applied to you was silly, and merely the umpteenth time you've
> > melodramatically played the persecution card. It gets old, Andy.
>
> More of your opinions.
More of the obvious from Dr. Chung. This is the difference. I'm not
so monstrously hung-up on my own infallibility (as you seem to be) that
I label every other one of my opinions as "truth."
>
> > As a descriptor of your behavior, my *opinion* is that you are
> > trolling, and therefore, are a troll.
>
> Thankfully, your opinion does not matter.
<shrug> Actually, I note my words to you matter as much as they
matter anywhere on Usenet - you're responding to me, and therefore
reading what I write. There is no more valuable currency of "mattering"
here than that.
Publicly, I suspect you feel you have too much to lose to admit you
ever take anyone's criticism's seriously, but privately, perhaps (I'm
just being optimistic here), you're occasionally reflective. Maybe.
Maybe not.
>
> > You can wiggle your cheeks all
> > you want about it. Your recent TOS violations with your ISP and the
> > repeated negative attention you seem to garner on Usenet has more to do
> > with your trollish behavior (as opposed to your Christianity) than
> > you're constitutionally able to admit to yourself.
>
> More opinion.
Pedantic of you, but thanks. Again, I have a thing about
intellectual honesty. I don't label my opinions as "truth" in knee-jerk
fashion. Even if I'm speaking the truth, I sometimes don't even label
it as such... perhaps I have an innate faith in my audience to
eventually come to the correct conclusions on their own.
>
> > >
> > > > To be fair, Bob's post to you was obviously a 'counter-trolling'
> > > > post, so he's just trolling to your trolling.
> > >
> > > Actually, Bob's behavior arise from his obsessions.
> >
> > Perhaps you are both sides of the same coin.
>
> That would be your guess.
Brilliant. That would be why I used the word "perhaps" when I
commented on your guess about Bob's mental state.
>
> > >
> > > See for yourself tomorrow...
> >
> > No thanks. You have nothing to offer me, and nothing to offer anyone
> > I can see at ASDLC.
>
> My Lord offers eternal life for all those who will place their faith in
> Him.
.... which is completely off-topic for ASDLC, which is a big deal in
the world of netiquette.
This may not seem important to you, after all, you're on a religious
quest of some kind. But it's important to others, and that's exactly my
point.