How's the PASTROLLING gong to day, Bobbie. Enjoy making an ass out of
yourself all over Usenet in front of all your friends?

http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1DA32257

On Fri, 06 Feb 2004 12:05:42 -0500, Bob > wrote:

>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
>>>>In truth, I haven't said one way or another here on Usenet :-)

PASTROLLIO WROTE:

>See how coyly Chung tells the literal truth but is actually evading
>the truth. He hasn't said that he does ON USENET. He has in submitted
>information to the AMA.
>
>>><hiss>
>
>Poor deluded Chung thinks that by snipping the truth, he avoids it.
>
>The TRUTH is that Chung has lied to the AMA by claiming hospital
>privileges where he doesn't have them.
>
>Here's Chung...
>
>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 SMC 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.