On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 19:01:00 -0800, lgo > Screamed
something into the void that sounded like:
>menu boy wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" > wrote in message
>>
>>>Simply consider the following decision tree:
>>>
>>>(1) Accept Christ.
>>>Risk: Nothing.
>>>
>>>Benefits: Salvation, purposeful life, eternal life, unimaginable riches in God's
>>>eternal kingdom.
>>>
>>>(2) Reject Christ.
>>>Risk: Eternal separation from God. Eternal torment of your soul by satan.
>>>
>>>Benefits: Nothing.
>>
>>
>> What about all the risks you're taking by not accepting non-Christian
>> beliefs?
>>
>>
>Hey guys, what does all this have to do with cooking?
it has nothing to do with cooking or any other newsgroup it is being
cross posted too. it's a troll post from the chung troll.
Chung, A B
6041 Colt Ridge Trl SE
Mableton, GA 30126-5715
(404) 699-2780
Domain Name: HEARTMDPHD.COM
Registrar: TUCOWS INC.
Whois Server: whois.opensrs.net
Referral URL: http://domainhelp.tucows.com
Name Server: NS3.SOFTCOMCA.COM
Name Server: NS4.SOFTCOMCA.COM
Status: ACTIVE
Updated Date: 18-nov-2003
Creation Date: 01-jan-2001
Expiration Date: 01-jan-2011
---------------------------------
| The Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD FAQ |
| Version 1.0, January, 2004 |
---------------------------------
Introduction
------------
New people arriving in sci.med.cardiology (s.m.c.) 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 donšt 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
s.m.c.. If that were all he did, there would probably be no
controversy.
The controversy arises from Dr. Chungšs other behaviors on s.m.c., in
particular:
o He uses s.m.c. 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 s.m.c. 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 canšt 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. Mušs job is to troll other newsgroups and, when he gets
a reaction, to cross post the reaction to s.m.c. 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, Mušs tactics
are blunt and direct like those of a playground bully.
The above lists only the highlights of Dr. Chungšs egregious behavior
on s.m.c.. 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 s.m.c., 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 shouldnšt 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
-----