wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
<snip>
> > > > That is not what I discern.
> > >
> > > Sigh. I guess that's your fortune-cookie way of saying 'I don't
> > > believe you."
> >
> > Your guess is wrong.
>
> Whatever.

This reveals your disinterest in the truth.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Again, that is not what I discern.
>
> OK. So who did you ask?

Those who have to ask about the truth are those who are unable to
discern it.

> > > It's an empty phrase, much like a politician saying, "I
> > > am against crime," or "I am for lower taxes."
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> Captain Obvious saves the day again.
>
> Again, I'm not so bombastic as to label my opinions "truth."
> However, my opinions are hardly baseless.

No opinion is baseless.

Indeed, opinion is always subordinate to the truth.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Sorry you don't like my truthful response.
>
> Sorry, it has nothing to do with your strange concept of truth.

The truth is alien to the untruthful.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > No such claim was made.
>
> In case it isn't clear, looking for the truth in the the poster's
> statement who called you a "troll" is what *I* am referred to as the
> opportunity to examine your flaws.

Namecalling is the process of delivering insults rather than the process
of making statements.

> You said that this would be like
> "looking for the truth in satan." Now I'm not sure what, exactly, you
> were responding to.

Looking for truth in an insult would be like looking for truth in satan.

In both cases, the truth would be absent. Those who are able to discern
the truth know this already.

> > > 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.
> >
> > In Christ, one has died to selfishness.
>
> Besides that not being a quite grammatical sentence, you seem to be
> confusing "selfishness" and "self-reflection." These are two extremely
> different things. Moreover, in my direct personal and clinical
> experience, those who deny themselves any opportunity for
> self-reflection tend to be the most selfish people there are.

A person who has been made selfless through the power of the Holy Spirit
after completely surrendering his/her life to the LORD has no self to
reflect, just His amazing light.

> > > Your religion isn't supposed to blind you to people around you.
> >
> > Following Christ is not a religion but a way of life.
>
> Yes?

Yes.

> So that makes you exempt from examining and correcting your
> faults?

It remains my choice to stay surrendered to the LORD, Who tests me,
humbles me, and reshapes me for His purposes and plans.

> > > You frequently behave on this newsgroup like an annoying
> > > attention-hound.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> I'll concede happily it's my opinion. However, it's not a baseless
> opinion in the least.

See above.

> > > 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.
> >
> > More opinion.
>
> I'll concede happily it's my opinion. However, it's not a baseless
> opinion in the least.

See above.

> > > You seem to have the uncanny ability to take any
> > > thread off-topic. People call you on stuff like this.
> >
> > Others also have God's gift of free will.
> >
> > > 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.
> >
> > Sorry my choice to obey my LORD bothers you.
>
> See.... you're doing it again. You have this melodramatic
> persecuted-Christian stuff down like a formula. Again, point totally
> flew over your head.

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.

> > > But God's on your side, so you don't have to worry about
> > > stuff like, well, self-reflection, right?
> >
> > "Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself."
> > teaches LORD Jesus Christ.
>
> Smart guy. Worry today - these concerns about your behavior are
> relevant now.

The LORD is teaching about today.

> > > > > 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).
> >
> > (It remains my choice to stick with the truth rather than to formulate
> > an opinion).
>
> Ah, problem is, when you have that attitude, you clearly give people
> only two options - one, believe you unquestioningly when you imply that
> you stick to "truth," (and nothing but, by implication). Which would
> make you flawless.

The truth is flawless.

"I am the way, the truth, and the life" declares LORD Jesus Christ

> The other option is to say the obvious: "wait, no one has a monopoly
> on truth here in this material world, what is this guy trying to
> pull"??

He is what He is.

> I think you know where most people's sentiments are. Finding
> God doesn't award you a truth-monopoly in all other things. Drop it.

It remains my choice to continue walking with the LORD.

> I personally think you could go back to being twice as openly
> Christian as you are now (if that's even possible) as long as you
> showed a little humility and engaged in back-and-forth dialogue on a
> more collaborative basis with people, as opposed to setting yourself up
> as the infallible truth dispenser, which really puts people off. It
> does me.

Sorry the use of GOD's gift of truth discernment puts you off.

> >
> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > In truth, how GOD regards me is the only thing that matters.
>
> All righty, so does God tell you that you that he regards you better
> when you bombastically label all of your assertions and commentary as
> being "truth," and make a point of labelling your interlocutor's
> point's "opinion"?

The LORD guides me in everything I say, do, or write.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Such is the truth for those who are able to discern it.
>
> Or willing to discern it. I'm looking at you, Doctor.

The ability to discern the truth comes from GOD and only after one has
received the Holy Spirit. Those who do not possess this ability can no
more will it into existence any more than can a blind man will his
vision back.

> > > 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."
> >
> > Your opinions are not the truth.
>
> And what you label as "truths" are frequently your opinion.

As if you were able to discern the truth.

> Hence the problem.

Being unable to discern the truth is an insurmountable problem.

> > > > > 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.
> >
> > Insults are not criticisms.
>
> They can be both, as I explained quite clearly.

Explanations do not create truths.

> > The former reveal a soul in need of
> > salvation. The latter are opportunities for the wise to grow in
> > knowledge. A person who does not know the difference is someone without
> > wisdom. The LORD is the source of all wisdom.
>
> OK.

Would suggest you let it sink in...

> Consider my postings a humble offering to you. No, I don't claim
> to have a monopoly on truth, either in the material or spiritual world.
> However, I did take the time to translate the original poster's comment
> on you as a "troll" and hopefully elucidated why it would be a mistake
> for you to inordinately focus on your sense of insult (which would be a
> selfish act). Looking for the truth in the statement would be a
> selfless act, instead of thinking about how the term "troll" insults
> you, you could think about why the other person might have said such a
> thing.

.... or 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.
> >
> > Your faith in others is misplaced.
>
> Mere opinion.

It is what I have discerned.

> > > > > > > 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.
> >
> > Behavior is observed rather than guessed.
>
> No, you're wrong. If we're speaking in a purely empirical sense, an
> "obsession" per se, is not a behavior that can be observed, but only
> inferred. Obsessions are at *best* a covert behavior (and looking at an
> obsession as a behavior is debatable) that can only be inferred on the
> basis of outward behavior.
>
> As an aside, you represent yourself as an MD on these boards. Be
> careful about diagnosing others with psychiatric disorders without
> their permission (I'm not saying that's what you did, but you appear to
> come close). That's an actionable ethical violation, at least as far as
> the American Psychiatric Association is concerned.

The LORD continues to guide me in everything I say, do, or write.

> > > > > > 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.
> >
> > In truth, the chat was not held in ASDLC. Nor will it be held in ASDLC
> > next week.
>
> Thank God.

All the time.

> > > 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.
> >
> > Your opinion is pointless.
>
> My growing suspicion is that this entire exchange with you has been
> pointless, but I have a hope that you'll re-read some of this later, an
> in private you might actually reflect on yourself a bit in a way you
> seem constitutionally incapable here.

It remain my choice to keep my eyes on the LORD, Whom I love with all my
heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)

Would be more than happy to chat about this and other things like
cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that may interest you here next week:

http://tinyurl.com/cpayh

For those who are put off by the signature, my advance apologies for how
the Lord has reshaped me:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

In Christ's love always,

Andrew
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist

**
Suggested Reading:
(1) http://makeashorterlink.com/?G1D5217EA
(2) http://makeashorterlink.com/?W13A4250B
(3) http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A
(4) http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A
(5) http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
(6) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A
(7) http://makeashorterlink.com/?I22222129