Historic (rec.food.historic) Discussing and discovering how food was made and prepared way back when--From ancient times down until (& possibly including or even going slightly beyond) the times when industrial revolution began to change our lives.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)   Report Post  
Home, Home On The Mu_n
 
Posts: n/a
Default Diet Season is Over

Pastorio, have you sought counsel over your OBSESSIVE TROLLING of a
cardiology newsgroup?

========================================

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 14:06:47 -0500, Bob > wrote:

>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
><snip malice, braggadocio and commercial troll>
>
>The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ
>Version 1.01, January, 2004
>
>Introduction
>------------
>New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (SMC) are often puzzled and
>troubled by the controversy surrounding the poster who posts as Dr.
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD (Dr. Chung) and want to know what the
>controversy is about. This FAQ (Frequently Asked Questions) attempts
>to provide an answer.
>
>The FAQ is arranged in typical FAQ form, i.e. a series of questions
>and answers. For those who don’t wish to read the whole FAQ, the
>following summary is provided.
>
>Summary
>-------
>Dr. Chung represents himself to be a licensed physician specializing
>in cardiology. In this capacity he responds to medical questions on
>SMC. If that were all he did, there would probably be no controversy.
>
>The controversy arises from Dr. Chung’s other behaviors on SMC, in
>particular:
>
>o He uses SMC to not only proselytize his particular interpretation of
>Christianity, but also to disparage and attack anyone with a different
>interpretation or different religion.
>
>o He uses SMC to promote his unscientific Two Pound Diet (2PD) and, in
>fact, cross posts this information to other groups in order to gain
>more exposure.
>
>o When challenged on the above issues, or one of his medical opinions,
>he attacks his challengers as "obsessive anti-Christians", "libelers",
>"homosexuals", "people who can’t understand English", etc.
>
>o When challenged he performs Internet searches on his challengers in
>order to "get the dirt" on them and smear their reputations.
>
>o When challenged, he answers with evasions, non sequiturs,
>dissembling, rhetorical questions, quotes from the bible, religious
>mantras, thinly veiled death threats, ad hominem arguments, and other
>such disreputable, unethical, and unprofessional tactics.
>
>o He is insufferably full of himself, claiming to have "the gift of
>Truth Discernment" and to be "Humble" while behaving anything but humbly.
>
>o He uses a foil who posts under variations of the name "Mu" to avoid
>killfiles. Mu’s job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a
>reaction, to cross post the reaction to SMC so that Dr. Chung can
>disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post. Whereas
>Dr. Chung has to be somewhat careful what he says and so attacks
>primarily through insinuation and innuendo, Mu’s tactics are blunt and
>direct like those of a playground bully.
>
>The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chung’s egregious behavior
>on SMC. If anything, it understates it. Everything can be verified in
>the Google archives.
>
>The issue then arises: so what? As long as Dr. Chung provides free
>medical advice on SMC, who cares what else he does?
>
>Many people provide free medical advice on the internet. How does one
>know whether it is good advice or bad advice? If the person giving the
>advice is, or represents himself to be, a doctor shouldn’t that be
>enough? Unfortunately, no.
>
>Medical education alone is not enough to guarantee good advice.
>Knowledge must be tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity,
>ethics, and professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by
>their behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence
>should be given to their medical advice?
>
>People arrive in this group looking for help. For their own
>protection, they deserve to know the quality of the person purporting
>to dispense that help and not be lulled into a false sense of security
>simply because someone displays an MD after their name. It is the
>intention of this FAQ to provide people with enough information to
>allow them to make an informed decision.
>
>List of Questions Answered
>--------------------------
>1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
>2. What is the Charter of SMC?
>3. Aren’t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
>4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What’s the Problem With That?
>5. But it’s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
>6. But I’m a Christian Too!
>7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
>8. But Isn’t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free Medical
>Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
>9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on Usenet?
>10. Won’t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
>11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
>Challenge Dr. Chung?
>12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
>13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
>14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
>15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
>16. Who is Mu?
>17. What is Mu’s Role?
>
> 1. Who is Dr. Andrew B Chung, MD/PhD?
>--------------------------------------
>The poster who posts as Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD claims to be a
>licensed physician, practicing internal medicine in Atlanta, Georgia,
>USA and specializing in cardiology. His signature contains a link to a
>website which is consistent with his posts.
>
>It should be noted that anyone can claim to be anyone on Usenet and so
>caution is always advised. Indeed there are those who claim that the
>poster in question is not Dr. Andrew B. Chung, or is not the Dr.
>Andrew B. Chung listed in the Atlanta telephone directory, and/or has
>lost his license and/or hospital privileges for misconduct. This FAQ
>does not attempt to address those claims one way or the other. The
>reader with an interest in these matters can easily find the relevant
>discussions archived in Google Groups.
>
>This FAQ deals with the poster who posts as Dr. Chung and restricts
>itself to issues demonstrated by those posts. No position is taken on
>his "true" identity.
>
> 2. What is the Charter of SMC?
> ----------------------------------
>The purpose of this newsgroup is to establish electronic media for
>communication between health care providers, scientists and other
>individuals with interest in the cardiovascular field. Such
>communications will provide quick and efficacious means to exchange
>information and knowledge, and offer problems to solutions.
>
>The sci.med.cardiology newsgroup will welcome participants who are
>health care providers, trainees, researchers, students or recipients
>with interest in the field of cardiovascular problems."
>
>(ftp://ftp.uu.net/usenet/news.announc...med.cardiology)
>
> 3. Aren’t Religious Discussions Covered by the Charter?
>--------------------------------------------------------
>What do you think?
>
> 4. So Dr. Chung is Religious... What’s the Problem With That?
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>There is no problem with that. Most of the people who participate in
>SMC are probably religious. However no one but Dr. Chung feels
>compelled to characterize themselves as the "Humble Servant of God" in
>their signatures, continually thank God for the opportunity to
>"witness", question others about their religious beliefs, claim the
>"Gift of Truth Discernment", etc.
>
>When one person insists on introducing his personal religious
>interpretations into the discussions, it naturally generates responses
>from others who feel just as strongly that their viewpoints are
>correct. The resulting debate easily swirls out of control, especially
>given Dr. Chung’s intolerant and dismissive attitude towards beliefs
>which differ from his. The situation is further exacerbated by Mu’s
>rabble raising from the sidelines.
>
>There are over 160 Usenet groups dedicated to the discussion of
>religion. Dr. Chung should take his beliefs to one of these and stick
>to cardiology in SMC It is a simple matter of respect for others.
>
> 5. But it’s Just a Little "Tag Line" in His Signature.
>-------------------------------------------------------
>No, it is not. He has even gone so far as to "investigate" someone
>asking for advice about stents and accuse her of being anti-Christian.
>
>6. But I’m a Christian Too!
>----------------------------
>Lots of people are Christians. There is a time and a place for
>everything. SMC isn’t the place to "witness" or recruit. In addition,
>lots of other people are Jews, Moslems, Buddhists, Taoists, Hindus,
>etc. Would SMC be better or worse if they all emulated Dr. Chung in
>their proselytizing and recruiting?
>
>Furthermore, if you are a Christian, you should be appalled by Dr.
>Chung’s pharisaical, cynical, and manipulative use of Christianity. He
>is truly a "whitened sepulcher", loudly proclaiming his adherence to
>Christian values while overtly lying, carrying on smear campaigns
>against others, making false accusations, dissembling, and marketing
>his web site under the guise of altruism. He is "bearing false
>witness" and true Christians should be concerned.
>
>As an example, when John Ritter recently died unexpectedly, Dr. Chung
>rushed to use this unfortunate event to market his web site. He showed
>a total lack of Christian compassion for Mr. Ritter and his family,
>even when challenged to do so.
>
>As another example, he recently choreographed a smear campaign against
>a poster who had criticized him. Dr. Chung found a homosexual author
>with the same first name and then insinuated that the poster and
>anyone who agreed with him were engaged in a homosexual relationship.
>Ask yourself if this the brand of Christianity you identify with.
>
> 7. Well, Why Not Just Ignore His Religious Rants?
>-------------------------------------------------- Why should one
>individual be given carte blanche to violate the rights of everyone
>else? Usenet is a community. It is up to the community to sanction its
>members. There is nothing "ad hominem" about challenging inappropriate
>and antisocial behavior.
>
>8. But Isn’t It Wonderful That Dr. Chung Offers This Free Medical
>Advice Out of the Goodness of His Heart?
>----------------------------------------------------------
>First, it is only of value if it is good advice. Medical education
>alone is not enough to guarantee good advice. Knowledge must be
>tempered with judgment, impartiality, integrity, ethics, and
>professionalism. If someone consistently demonstrates by their
>behavior that they lack these qualities, how much credence should be
>given to their medical advice?
>
>Secondly, despite his protestations to the contrary, Dr. Chung is not
>simply motivated by altruism. Every post of Dr. Chung's contains a
>link to a website with the following quote:
>
> "If you are looking for a cardiologist and reside in Georgia, please
>consider me your best option for a personal heart advocate. Check out
>my credentials and my background. Additional information is available
>in the protected sections of this web site. Email me at
to me of your interest and I may send you
>a temporary username and password to allow a preview. The more
>information you email, the more likely my decision to send you a
>temporary username and password. If you like what you see and learn
>from this website and wish to confer with me about your heart, you or
>your doctor should email me privately or call my voicemail at
>404-699-2780 to schedule an appointment to see me at my *real*
>office." (http://www.heartmdphd.com/office.asp)
>
>Thirdly, Dr. Chung has repeatedly stated that one of his key
>motivations for participating is SMC is to "witness" and win converts
>to his religious beliefs.
>
> 9. How Does a Practicing Physician Find so Much Time to Spend on
>Usenet?
>------------------------------------------------------------------
>An interesting question.
>
>10. Won’t Challenging Dr. Chung Drive People Away?
>--------------------------------------------------
>Perhaps. But not challenging him will drive others away.
>
>SMC is historically a "low traffic" group. Therefore, when Dr. Chung
>misbehaves, he generates an apparently large response. This is
>compounded by Dr. Chung’s need to "get in the last word" and Mu’s
>provocations. In spite of this, if someone has a question it will
>usually be answered.
>
>Dr. Chung is not the only participant who offers advice in SMC He is
>not even the only doctor who participates in SMC However, the
>controversy he generates and sustains often makes it appear that he is
>the "only game in town".
>
>Finally, Dr. Chung himself drives others away including other
>physicians who leave in disgust after being verbally assaulted by him,
>and other knowledgeable posters who point out where Dr. Chung’s
>medical opinion might be in error or at least not the only one
>generally held. Anyone disagreeing with Dr. Chung on any subject can
>expect a series of increasingly vitriolic attacks, including threats
>of libel suits.
>
>11. Doesn't the "Fault" for all Those Posts Lay With Those Who
>Challenge Dr. Chung?
>--------------------------------------------------------------
>An interesting perspective: blame the victim. No other poster (with
>the exception of Mu, of course) introduces religion or the Two Pound
>Diet. How can it be acceptable for Dr. Chung to introduce these
>topics, but not acceptable for others to respond?
>
>In any thread, someone must, of necessity "get the last word". Dr.
>Chung has amply demonstrated that he will not be outdone in this respect.
>
>12. Why Do I see So Many "Ad Hominem" Attacks?
>----------------------------------------------
>You are probably referring to an "Ad Hominem" _argument_, which
>attempts to disprove an adversary's fact by personal attack on the
>adversary. An example would be "You are opposed to the Two Pound Diet
>because you are anti-Christian".
>
>When someone misbehaves, for example lies or distorts what someone
>else is saying, it is not an "ad hominem attack" to call them on it.
>It is a legitimate social sanction.
>
>There are also, unfortunately too often, simple personal attacks and
>insults on both sides. While we can all wish it weren't so, it is
>simply human nature when an argument becomes heated or the other
>person is obviously not arguing in good faith. If you are distressed
>by this, see the next question.
>
>13. I'm Sick of Seeing All This!
>--------------------------------
>There is no reason why you have to see it. Just as you can change the
>TV channel if you don't like a show, you can killfile a poster or
>thread you don't want to see. See the manual that came with your
>Usenet reader for directions on how to do it.
>
>Before you do this, however, you may wish to consider if a truer
>picture of the world is not gained by seeing all that goes on - both
>the good and the bad.
>
>14. What is the Two Pound Diet?
>-------------------------------
>The Two pound Diet is a diet which Dr. Chung "invented". It’s only
>rule is to restrict yourself to two pounds of food per day. That’s it.
>Doesn’t matter if you are a 16 year old girl or an 80 year old man; a
>5' 2" woman or a 7' man; a weight lifter or a mattress tester. Two
>pounds. That’s it. No more, less if you want. One size fits all.
>
>Oh, and the food? Whatever you want: two pounds of lettuce, two pounds
>of ice cream, two pounds of celery, two pounds of bacon, two pounds of
>chocolate, two pounds of peanuts... doesn’t matter. Mix and match.
>Just keep it under two pounds.
>
>Dr. Chung’s claim is that this magical weight of food, this universal
>gustatory constant will cause everyone to arrive at and maintain their
>ideal weight. His scientific basis for this claim: none. The proof he
>offers: none. Studies supporting this claim: none. Nutritional
>explanation: none. Metabolic explanation: none.
>
>And this from a doctor who expects people to take him seriously on
>other issues.
>
>15. Is Discussion of the Two Pound Diet "On Topic"?
>---------------------------------------------------
>Dr. Chung says it is because being overweight is a risk factor for
>heart problems and therefore discussion of the Two Pound Diet is On
>Topic. However criticism of the Two Pound Diet is Off Topic as is
>discussion of any other diet.
>
>As with religion, Dr. Chung takes every opportunity to introduce the
>Two Pound Diet (2PD) into any other thread. In addition Mu trolls
>other newsgroups, particularly the diet groups looking for
>opportunities to introduce the 2PD in these groups and then cross post
>the resulting discussion back to s.m.c so that Dr. Chung can
>disingenuously claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
>
>Since Dr. Chung and Mu have been laughed off of these other groups and
>have been asked repeatedly not to bring up the 2PD in them,
>participants of these groups are understandably angered when it
>happens yet again and, because of Mu’s cross-posting, all their anger
>spills back into SMC
>
>Another reason for ongoing 2PD discussions is Dr. Chung’s habit of
>researching anyone who criticizes the 2PD and then cross-posting his
>responses back to other groups which the critic has been found to
>frequent. He disingenuously claims that he does this as a
>"convenience" to the critic, but his true reasons are transparent.
>Once again, the cross-post generates a firestorm in SMC
>
>The bottom line is that if the Two Pound Diet is "On Topic" for
>anyone, it is "On Topic" for everyone... including it's critics. If it
>is "Off Topic", it should not be continually re-introduced by Dr. Chung.
>
>16. Who is Mu?
>--------------
>Mu is a longtime Usenet Troll who has even merited his own FAQ. He
>postures as some kind of personal physical trainer, but who really
>knows? He has allied himself with Dr. Chung and serves as the "Bad
>Cop" in the Chung - Mu "Good Cop - Bad Cop" routine. He specializes in
>the short, nasty one-liner and, because unlike Dr. Chung, he has no
>reputation to protect, he can afford to be much more direct and offensive.
>
>Mu parrots an even meaner-spirited version of Dr. Chung’s
>"Christianity" and does not hesitate to employ anti-Semitism and
>homophobia in his attacks.
>
>Naturally, most people would have long ago killfiled Mu, so he changes
>his handle on an almost daily basis.
>
>17. What is Mu’s Role?
>----------------------
>Mu’s role is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets a reaction,
>to cross post the reaction to SMC so that Dr. Chung can disingenuously
>claim to be "only responding" to a cross post.
>
>Mu is also responsible for pitching softballs to Dr. Chung so he can
>hit them out of the park, and for re-introducing religion and the Two
>Pound Diet should the discussion flag.
>
>Finally, Mu’s role is to tirelessly wear down unsuspecting Dr. Chung
>critics, deflecting the blows that would otherwise be aimed at Dr.
>Chung. He is Dr. Chung’s Internet equivalent of the "rope-a-dope".
>Insults roll off him like water off a duck as do attempts to reason
>with him or even have a civil discussion.
>
>Most people have learned to ignore him and his comment is usually the
>last one in any thread sub-tree where it appears.
>
>Comments and/or corrections to this FAQ will be taken under advisement.
>



http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap960222.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Dalmatian tourist season late, growing season full-on johnjgoddard.com General Cooking 3 07-07-2006 06:23 PM
Diet Season is Over Home, Home On The Mu_n General Cooking 1 09-02-2004 02:08 AM
Diet Season is Over Home, Home On The Mu_n Historic 0 09-02-2004 02:08 AM
Diet Season is Over Home, Home On The Mu_n Preserving 0 08-02-2004 05:09 PM
Dr. Andrew B. Chung is deluded WAS: Moderate-fat Diet Is Kinder To Heart Than Low-fat Diet Last Shot At The Mu_n Historic 0 06-02-2004 04:11 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 07:26 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 FoodBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Food and drink"