Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > >
> > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > are two different things."
> > >
> > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > assertion.
> > >
> > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > NGs, by the way.
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
>
> <snip>
>
> Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.

The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
very plainly.

> If this is
> how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).

Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)

> If this is

It is :-)

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that 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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > >
> > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > are two different things."
> > > >
> > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > assertion.
> > > >
> > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > NGs, by the way.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
>
> The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> very plainly.

Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
speaker. Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis. I agree that your
sentence is plain.

>
> > If this is
> > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
>
> Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)

Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
today :-)

Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
restate your comment for comprehensibility. I understood your comment
(e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
different things).

I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
other.... OK?

>
> > If this is
>
> It is :-)

Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.

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

Probably not, unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
here. Show your audience some respect.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> > <snip>
> >
> > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > engage
> > in intellectually honest discourse,
>
> GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> discourse.

That's nice. Again, my point stands.

>
> > why don't you simply explain the
> > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > are two different things."
>
> Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> the differences in the meanings of different words.

Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
assertion. Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.

>
> > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > sentence,
>
> Then you do not need an explanation of it.

For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
writing.

However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."

>
> > but you
> > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > "clarify."
>
> Comprehension requires no clarification.

See above.

>
> > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
>
> Problems do not have symptoms.

I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
"definition of the word symptom"
(http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
definition entry:

"anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
existence"

I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
things tend to accompany your interactions with people, which I assert
can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
existence. The problem of course being your manner of relating with
others. I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
think that's the only reason. Christianity may have fixed you
spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally. Your faults are
still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.

<snip>

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > are two different things."
> > > > >
> > > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > assertion.
> > > > >
> > > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > > NGs, by the way.
> > > >
> > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
> >
> > The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> > very plainly.
>
> Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
> speaker.

Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.

> Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
> that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.

In your opinion.

> I agree that your
> sentence is plain.

And yet you do not understand it.

> >
> > > If this is
> > > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
> >
> > Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)
>
> Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
> today :-)

Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
who have it would know this.

> Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
> restate your comment for comprehensibility.

And so I have not.

> I understood your comment
> (e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
> different things).

And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.

> I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
> common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
> each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
> with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
> other.... OK?

What you asked was:

"Please clarify."

and not

"Please show how they are different."

> >
> > > If this is
> >
> > It is :-)
>
> Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.
>
> >
> > Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> > like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
> > week:
>
> Probably not

Your choice.

> unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
> basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
> here.

You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
basis for what they see.

> Show your audience some respect.

When the seeing describe what they see, no disrespect is being shown
the blind.

Would remain more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other
things like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that 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

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > > engage
> > > in intellectually honest discourse,
> >
> > GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> > discourse.
>
> That's nice. Again, my point stands.

Not if you understand what goal means.

> > > why don't you simply explain the
> > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > are two different things."
> >
> > Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> > the differences in the meanings of different words.
>
> Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
> assertion.

Actually, I was answering your question:

"Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"

> Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
> explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.

Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
lacks the ability to comprehend.

> > > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > > sentence,
> >
> > Then you do not need an explanation of it.
>
> For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
> the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
> writing.
>
> However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
> to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
> tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
> because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
> words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
> assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
> the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."

Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:

Science is to scientific method as

(1) Art is to artistic licence
(2) Genetics is to genetic testing
(3) Law is to lawyering
(4) Biology is to bioengineering
(5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
(6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
(7) Medicine is to medical care

> >
> > > but you
> > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > > "clarify."
> >
> > Comprehension requires no clarification.
>
> See above.

Please do.

> > > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
> >
> > Problems do not have symptoms.
>
> I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
> "definition of the word symptom"
> (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
> definition entry:
>
> "anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
> existence"

Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.

> I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> things tend to accompany your interactions with people,

In your opinion.

> which I assert
> can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> existence.

The untruthful are bothered by the truth.

> The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> others.

It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
that bothers you or others.

> I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> think that's the only reason.

It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
of others.

> Christianity may have fixed you
> spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.

In your opinion.

> Your faults are
> still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.

It remains my choice to walk with the LORD despite all my faults which
have never been hidden. The LORD has promised, that through Him, all
who have received the Holy Spirit will be made perfect so that they can
spend the rest of eternity in His kingdom.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that 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

Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > > assertion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > > > > NGs, by the way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
> > > >
> > > > The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> > > > very plainly.
> > >
> > > Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
> > > speaker.
> >
> > Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.
>
> Only the intellectually lazy duck out of explaining their assertions
> by implying a lack of comprehension ability in their interlocutors.

That is not what I discern.

> > > Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
> > > that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> No, in my words. I'm asking you for an explanation of the
> evidentiary basis for your assertion. You didn't state one. Perhaps you
> don't think one is required. That's a symptom of your larger problem.

Sorry you do not like what I have written.

> > > I agree that your
> > > sentence is plain.
> >
> > And yet you do not understand it.
>
> Wrong.

That is not what I discern.

> > > >
> > > > > If this is
> > > > > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > > > > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > > > > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
> > > >
> > > > Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)
> > >
> > > Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
> > > today :-)
> >
> > Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
> > who have it would know this.
>
> You don't have it, or else you would have comprehended what I have
> told you several times now.

Your choice to continue this discourse reveals your insincerity even to
the undiscerning.

> > > Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
> > > restate your comment for comprehensibility.
> >
> > And so I have not.
>
> Excellent.

The truth is excellent :-)

> This puts lie to your earlier comment that the problem is
> one of comprehension.

Would suggest you reread the discourse if you desire to seek the truth.

> Again, it's not. The problem is you make
> assertions, and you don't explain the basis for your assertions. That's
> not fair play.

This is not a game for me.

> > > I understood your comment
> > > (e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
> > > different things).
> >
> > And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.
>
> Yes. Of the *evidentiary* *basis* of your assertion. I never asked
> for you to aid me in comprehending the assertion itself, and yet you
> continue to confuse the two. I'll continue to repeat myself if you
> like.

Your choice.

> > > I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
> > > common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
> > > each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
> > > with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
> > > other.... OK?
> >
> > What you asked was:
> >
> > "Please clarify."
>
> Yes.
>
> >
> > and not
> >
> > "Please show how they are different."
>
> You deliberately left out the full response.

The period at the end of a sentence indicates that the writing of a
thought has been completed.

> Another disrespectful
> and disingenuous debating tactic. The full response was, "Please
> clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught disagrees with
> you."

The first sentence is a request. The second sentence is untrue even to
the undiscerning.

> Did you miss that second sentence?

No. It remains untrue.

> In it, the particular use of the
> word "clarify" is put in the obvious context of factual disagreement
> with your assertion.

Untrue statements are meaningless.

> Instead, you (deliberately?) misconstrue my
> comment in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Bravo.

It remains my choice to stick with the truth and to ignore that which
is untrue.

> > > > > If this is
> > > >
> > > > It is :-)
> > >
> > > Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> > > > like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
> > > > week:
> > >
> > > Probably not
> >
> > Your choice.
>
> Yup. You can stop asking me now.

It remains an offer and not a request.

> > > unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
> > > basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
> > > here.
> >
> > You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
> > basis for what they see.
>
> <sigh> Is any of this sinking in with you at all? I still hold out
> hope it is. Look, Andrew, what's the point of you asking people to
> "chat" with you when you follow none of the common-courtesy rules of
> discourse that people follow when people have disagreements? You made a
> simple assertion about language, for crying out loud, one of the most
> subjective, and argue-able areas there is. And yet you can't help
> yourself, you're compelled to reduce it again to some sort of
> black-and-white biblical parable where you're the fount/vessel/channel
> of perfect truth, and everyone else is referred to in terms of
> contempt.
>
> You really are not of this world at all, you have that part correct.

It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully. Sorry my choice
bothers you. Please forgive me for all my iniquities.

> > > Show your audience some respect.
> >
> > When the seeing describe what they see, no disrespect is being shown
> > the blind.
>
> You didn't describe your statement. You asserted it without
> describing it. Don't know how that fits with your rather poor
> metaphorizing of our little chat here.

Without GOD, there can be no knowledge.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those who are
following this thread 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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > The LORD continues to guide me in everything I say, do, or write.
> > > >
> > > > Not everything.
> > >
> > > In everything.
> >
> > That would imply you've *never* had a moment (of "weakness" perhaps)
> > where the God of your understanding has not guided you in everything
> > you say, do, or write.
>
> The LORD does not have moments of weakness.

But you do.

>
> Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that 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

On Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:28:39 -0500, wrote
(in article . com>):

[snip ad nauseam]

Say, Ernie...

Are you familiar with the story of Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby?

That's about as much chance you have of talking sense with "Brer Chung".



--
Steve

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > > > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > > > > assertion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > > > > > > NGs, by the way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> > > > > > very plainly.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
> > > > > speaker.
> > > >
> > > > Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.
> > >
> > > Only the intellectually lazy duck out of explaining their assertions
> > > by implying a lack of comprehension ability in their interlocutors.
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> Regardless....

It would be your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > > Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
> > > > > that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.
> > > >
> > > > In your opinion.
> > >
> > > No, in my words. I'm asking you for an explanation of the
> > > evidentiary basis for your assertion. You didn't state one. Perhaps you
> > > don't think one is required. That's a symptom of your larger problem.
> >
> > Sorry you do not like what I have written.
>
> Sorry you misunderstood my statement as being one based on
> aesthetics.

The opinions of man are based on aesthetics more than on the truth.

> > > > > I agree that your
> > > > > sentence is plain.
> > > >
> > > > And yet you do not understand it.
> > >
> > > Wrong.
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> Regardless...

Again, it remains your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If this is
> > > > > > > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > > > > > > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > > > > > > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
> > > > > today :-)
> > > >
> > > > Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
> > > > who have it would know this.
> > >
> > > You don't have it, or else you would have comprehended what I have
> > > told you several times now.
> >
> > Your choice to continue this discourse reveals your insincerity even to
> > the undiscerning.
>
> Your choice to stoop to slandering me with baseless charges of
> insincerity reveals you as a spiteful person. That hurt. I suppose you
> can have the other cheek.

Would be glad to look at your other cheek.

> > > > > Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
> > > > > restate your comment for comprehensibility.
> > > >
> > > > And so I have not.
> > >
> > > Excellent.
> >
> > The truth is excellent :-)
>
> Chocolate ice cream's pretty good too.

There is no comparison with the truth.

> > > This puts lie to your earlier comment that the problem is
> > > one of comprehension.
> >
> > Would suggest you reread the discourse if you desire to seek the truth.
>
> Would suggest you reread my words to you if you desire to profit
> from this experience in any way at all. At the outset, that's what I'd
> hoped about this little chat from the start.

Your hope is misplaced.

> > > Again, it's not. The problem is you make
> > > assertions, and you don't explain the basis for your assertions. That's
> > > not fair play.
> >
> > This is not a game for me.
>
> If you're free to metaphorize, I'm free to metaphorize.

It remains my choice to write truthfully.

> > > > > I understood your comment
> > > > > (e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
> > > > > different things).
> > > >
> > > > And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.
> > >
> > > Yes. Of the *evidentiary* *basis* of your assertion. I never asked
> > > for you to aid me in comprehending the assertion itself, and yet you
> > > continue to confuse the two. I'll continue to repeat myself if you
> > > like.
> >
> > Your choice.
>
> Asked you first.

Asked and answered.

> > > > > I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
> > > > > common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
> > > > > each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
> > > > > with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
> > > > > other.... OK?
> > > >
> > > > What you asked was:
> > > >
> > > > "Please clarify."
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > and not
> > > >
> > > > "Please show how they are different."
> > >
> > > You deliberately left out the full response.
> >
> > The period at the end of a sentence indicates that the writing of a
> > thought has been completed.
>
> The two sentences were clearly collapsed in the paragraph, and the
> second sentence clearly referred to the preceding one.

The second sentence was meaningless. Without the truth, there is no
meaning.

> > > Another disrespectful
> > > and disingenuous debating tactic. The full response was, "Please
> > > clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught disagrees with
> > > you."
> >
> > The first sentence is a request.
>
> Yes.
>
> > The second sentence is untrue even to
> > the undiscerning.
>
> If you mean we disagree on that point, yes. If you mean that my
> assertion is wrong on it's face, you're wrong on yours.

People and not things disagree.

> > > Did you miss that second sentence?
> >
> > No. It remains untrue.
>
> I disagree.

The truth is independent of your opinions.

> > > In it, the particular use of the
> > > word "clarify" is put in the obvious context of factual disagreement
> > > with your assertion.
> >
> > Untrue statements are meaningless.
>
> Actually, untrue statements merely mean someone has got their facts
> wrong, or the basis for their statement is deficient or innacurate
> somehow. "Meaningless" doesn't capture it.

In your opinion.

> > > Instead, you (deliberately?) misconstrue my
> > > comment in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Bravo.
> >
> > It remains my choice to stick with the truth and to ignore that which
> > is untrue.
>
> That's a poor way of excusing your way around snipping my statement
> to score a cheap rhetorical point.

Ignoring is not snipping.

> Kind of funny, I'm not a big fan of
> Pastorio, but he (and others) have accused you of that in the past and
> I've never actually had someone do that to me that I can recall in all
> my years on Usenet.

It is your choice to be bothered by my ignoring the untrue statements
that you make.

> > > > > > > If this is
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It is :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> > > > > > like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
> > > > > > week:
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably not
> > > >
> > > > Your choice.
> > >
> > > Yup. You can stop asking me now.
> >
> > It remains an offer and not a request.
>
> Whichever.

It remains your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > > unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
> > > > > basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
> > > > > here.
> > > >
> > > > You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
> > > > basis for what they see.
> > >
> > > <sigh> Is any of this sinking in with you at all? I still hold out
> > > hope it is. Look, Andrew, what's the point of you asking people to
> > > "chat" with you when you follow none of the common-courtesy rules of
> > > discourse that people follow when people have disagreements? You made a
> > > simple assertion about language, for crying out loud, one of the most
> > > subjective, and argue-able areas there is. And yet you can't help
> > > yourself, you're compelled to reduce it again to some sort of
> > > black-and-white biblical parable where you're the fount/vessel/channel
> > > of perfect truth, and everyone else is referred to in terms of
> > > contempt.
> > >
> > > You really are not of this world at all, you have that part correct.
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
>
> Me too. Like most folks.

That is not what I discern.

> > Sorry my choice
> > bothers you.
>
> Well, I suppose then I can extend the same apology to you. I'm sorry
> for trying to engage you in some honest debate.

Without truth there can be no honesty.

With truth there is no debate.

It remains my choice to stick with the latter.

> > Please forgive me for all my iniquities.
>
> No need. Better to fix your iniquities instead of just apologizing
> about them.

Only the LORD, Whom I love and serve with all my heart, soul, mind, and
strength has that power :-)

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread 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

Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > > > > engage
> > > > > in intellectually honest discourse,
> > > >
> > > > GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> > > > discourse.
> > >
> > > That's nice. Again, my point stands.
> >
> > Not if you understand what goal means.
>
> Actually, ironically, my point stands **because** you're unable to
> reliably demonstrate comprehension of what intellectually honest
> discourse means.

In your opinion.

> > > > > why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > are two different things."
> > > >
> > > > Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> > > > the differences in the meanings of different words.
> > >
> > > Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
> > > assertion.
> >
> > Actually, I was answering your question:
>
> Yes, and I already explained why your answer is inadequate. See my
> comment immediately above.

Sorry you do not like my answer.

> > "Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
> > 'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"
> >
> > > Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
> > > explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.
> >
> > Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
> > to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
> > lacks the ability to comprehend.
>
> And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
> skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
> to the lack of comprehension in the other.

Something may be true and yet be unrelated to a discourse.

> > > > > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > > > > sentence,
> > > >
> > > > Then you do not need an explanation of it.
> > >
> > > For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
> > > the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
> > > writing.
> > >
> > > However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
> > > to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
> > > tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
> > > because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
> > > words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
> > > assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
> > > the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."
> >
> > Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:
> >
> > Science is to scientific method as
> >
> > (1) Art is to artistic licence
> > (2) Genetics is to genetic testing
> > (3) Law is to lawyering
> > (4) Biology is to bioengineering
> > (5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
> > (6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
> > (7) Medicine is to medical care
>
> Andrew!!!!!!!!!
>
> I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!

All praises belong to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)

> YOU DID IT!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)

That would be my choice to follow my LORD's guidance about both the
content and the timing.

> > > > > but you
> > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > > > > "clarify."
> > > >
> > > > Comprehension requires no clarification.
> > >
> > > See above.
> >
> > Please do.
>
> I appreciate what you wrote above

You are welcome :-)

> (although I still disagree with
> you).

(Your choice :-)

> I'm much more interested in why it required the metaphorical
> equivalent of tooth-pulling to get you to type out the equivalent of an
> additional short paragraph; why you resisted it so mightily.

The timing is His. GOD's timing is impeccable. The LORD is the source
of all my strength. All praises belong to LORD Jesus Christ, Whom I
love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)

> > > > > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > > > > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
> > > >
> > > > Problems do not have symptoms.
> > >
> > > I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
> > > "definition of the word symptom"
> > > (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
> > > definition entry:
> > >
> > > "anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
> > > existence"
> >
> > Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.
>
> You're no longer arguing with me, but with Princeton University. Just
> so happens I agree with their definition of the word "symptom" (hence
> my manner of word usage), and I disagree with yours.

You will have to make up your mind.

> Language is imperfect, and truth is sometimes "in between the lines."

All creations of man are imperfect for it is written that we all fall
short of GOD's glory.

> > > I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> > > things tend to accompany your interactions with people,
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> Wrong again, that's a fact.

Your belief.

> Wasn't your internet service yanked
> specifically because of the nature of your interactions with people on
> these very NGs?

No.

> Didn't it have something to do with you violating
> official rules regarding interactions with others?

Thankfully, my access to the Internet via BellSouth has never been
interrupted.

An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
to court:

http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt

> > > which I assert
> > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > existence.
> >
> > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
>
> But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> behavior.

In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.

> > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > others.
> >
> > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > that bothers you or others.
>
> Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> beliefs, actually.

The truth is independent of my beliefs.

> I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> you interact with others, however.

Your choice.

> > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > think that's the only reason.
> >
> > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > of others.
>
> Probably a safe choice.

Safety resides only with the LORD.

> > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> Not just mine.

Only the LORD's judgment matters.

> > > Your faults are
> > > still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.
> >
> > It remains my choice to walk with the LORD despite all my faults which
> > have never been hidden.
>
> Good. And I would never want to take that away from you.

You do not have that power even if you have that want.

> > The LORD has promised, that through Him, all
> > who have received the Holy Spirit will be made perfect so that they can
> > spend the rest of eternity in His kingdom.
>
> Yeah, but I hate to break it to you, but your moment of perfection
> is still in your future.

If it were not so, there would be no need for either hope or faith.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread 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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > > > > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > > > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > > > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > > > > > assertion.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > > > > > > > NGs, by the way.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> > > > > > > very plainly.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
> > > > > > speaker.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.
> > > >
> > > > Only the intellectually lazy duck out of explaining their assertions
> > > > by implying a lack of comprehension ability in their interlocutors.
> > >
> > > That is not what I discern.
> >
> > Regardless....
>
> It would be your choice to disregard the truth.

As it is yours.

>
> > > > > > Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
> > > > > > that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your opinion.
> > > >
> > > > No, in my words. I'm asking you for an explanation of the
> > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion. You didn't state one. Perhaps you
> > > > don't think one is required. That's a symptom of your larger problem.
> > >
> > > Sorry you do not like what I have written.
> >
> > Sorry you misunderstood my statement as being one based on
> > aesthetics.
>
> The opinions of man are based on aesthetics more than on the truth.

You said about two posts ago: "It remains my choice to not guess at
what the LORD sees in the hearts of others." Take your own advice, and
take my word as well. Again, I'm sorry you misunderstood (now
deliberately misconstruing, apparently) my point as being one based on
aesthetics.


>
> > > > > > I agree that your
> > > > > > sentence is plain.
> > > > >
> > > > > And yet you do not understand it.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > >
> > > That is not what I discern.
> >
> > Regardless...
>
> Again, it remains your choice to disregard the truth.

And again, it is your choice to do the same as well, despite your
proclamations of contrary discernment.

>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If this is
> > > > > > > > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > > > > > > > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > > > > > > > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
> > > > > > today :-)
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
> > > > > who have it would know this.
> > > >
> > > > You don't have it, or else you would have comprehended what I have
> > > > told you several times now.
> > >
> > > Your choice to continue this discourse reveals your insincerity even to
> > > the undiscerning.
> >
> > Your choice to stoop to slandering me with baseless charges of
> > insincerity reveals you as a spiteful person. That hurt. I suppose you
> > can have the other cheek.
>
> Would be glad to look at your other cheek.

It's waiting for you to slander it as well.

>
> > > > > > Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
> > > > > > restate your comment for comprehensibility.
> > > > >
> > > > > And so I have not.
> > > >
> > > > Excellent.
> > >
> > > The truth is excellent :-)
> >
> > Chocolate ice cream's pretty good too.
>
> There is no comparison with the truth.

There is no accounting for taste :-)

>
> > > > This puts lie to your earlier comment that the problem is
> > > > one of comprehension.
> > >
> > > Would suggest you reread the discourse if you desire to seek the truth.
> >
> > Would suggest you reread my words to you if you desire to profit
> > from this experience in any way at all. At the outset, that's what I'd
> > hoped about this little chat from the start.
>
> Your hope is misplaced.

Of course. Why would you say anything different on a public forum?

>
> > > > Again, it's not. The problem is you make
> > > > assertions, and you don't explain the basis for your assertions. That's
> > > > not fair play.
> > >
> > > This is not a game for me.
> >
> > If you're free to metaphorize, I'm free to metaphorize.
>
> It remains my choice to write truthfully.

That too.

>
> > > > > > I understood your comment
> > > > > > (e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
> > > > > > different things).
> > > > >
> > > > > And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.
> > > >
> > > > Yes. Of the *evidentiary* *basis* of your assertion. I never asked
> > > > for you to aid me in comprehending the assertion itself, and yet you
> > > > continue to confuse the two. I'll continue to repeat myself if you
> > > > like.
> > >
> > > Your choice.
> >
> > Asked you first.
>
> Asked and answered.

Likewise.

>
> > > > > > I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
> > > > > > common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
> > > > > > each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
> > > > > > with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
> > > > > > other.... OK?
> > > > >
> > > > > What you asked was:
> > > > >
> > > > > "Please clarify."
> > > >
> > > > Yes.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > and not
> > > > >
> > > > > "Please show how they are different."
> > > >
> > > > You deliberately left out the full response.
> > >
> > > The period at the end of a sentence indicates that the writing of a
> > > thought has been completed.
> >
> > The two sentences were clearly collapsed in the paragraph, and the
> > second sentence clearly referred to the preceding one.
>
> The second sentence was meaningless. Without the truth, there is no
> meaning.

No. Without the truth, there is untruth. Without meaning, there is
lack of meaning. The two are not the same. Untruths shed meaning just
like truths do - usually it means someone got their reasons or facts
wrong, sometimes it means deliberate chicanery.

>
> > > > Another disrespectful
> > > > and disingenuous debating tactic. The full response was, "Please
> > > > clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught disagrees with
> > > > you."
> > >
> > > The first sentence is a request.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> > > The second sentence is untrue even to
> > > the undiscerning.
> >
> > If you mean we disagree on that point, yes. If you mean that my
> > assertion is wrong on it's face, you're wrong on yours.
>
> People and not things disagree.

Given that things are inanimate objects and can't disagree, and
disagreement is a state between people, that would logically follow.

>
> > > > Did you miss that second sentence?
> > >
> > > No. It remains untrue.
> >
> > I disagree.
>
> The truth is independent of your opinions.

As it is similarly orthogonal to yours.

>
> > > > In it, the particular use of the
> > > > word "clarify" is put in the obvious context of factual disagreement
> > > > with your assertion.
> > >
> > > Untrue statements are meaningless.
> >
> > Actually, untrue statements merely mean someone has got their facts
> > wrong, or the basis for their statement is deficient or innacurate
> > somehow. "Meaningless" doesn't capture it.
>
> In your opinion.

If you need to say that, OK.

>
> > > > Instead, you (deliberately?) misconstrue my
> > > > comment in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Bravo.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to stick with the truth and to ignore that which
> > > is untrue.
> >
> > That's a poor way of excusing your way around snipping my statement
> > to score a cheap rhetorical point.
>
> Ignoring is not snipping.

So what? Whether it's ignoring or snipping doesn't change my point.

>
> > Kind of funny, I'm not a big fan of
> > Pastorio, but he (and others) have accused you of that in the past and
> > I've never actually had someone do that to me that I can recall in all
> > my years on Usenet.
>
> It is your choice to be bothered by my ignoring the untrue statements
> that you make.

Not bothered. Second, there's nothing untrue about my statement
"everything I've learned, read, and have been taught in this area
disagrees with you." You may disbelieve it, but if you call it an utrue
statement, you are lying. There's no way for you to know whether the
statement is untrue or not, logically, on its face, regardless of your
views on this particular topic area. What if "everything I've been
learned, read, and been taught" in the area of philosophy of science
was wrong? It would still disagree, just be incorrect. As it stands, I
don't believe what I've been read, taught, and learned in this area is
untrue. That doesn't make it untrue that I've been taught it.

>
> > > > > > > > If this is
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It is :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> > > > > > > like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
> > > > > > > week:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Probably not
> > > > >
> > > > > Your choice.
> > > >
> > > > Yup. You can stop asking me now.
> > >
> > > It remains an offer and not a request.
> >
> > Whichever.
>
> It remains your choice to disregard the truth.

As it remains your choice as well.

>
> > > > > > unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
> > > > > > basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
> > > > > > here.
> > > > >
> > > > > You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
> > > > > basis for what they see.
> > > >
> > > > <sigh> Is any of this sinking in with you at all? I still hold out
> > > > hope it is. Look, Andrew, what's the point of you asking people to
> > > > "chat" with you when you follow none of the common-courtesy rules of
> > > > discourse that people follow when people have disagreements? You made a
> > > > simple assertion about language, for crying out loud, one of the most
> > > > subjective, and argue-able areas there is. And yet you can't help
> > > > yourself, you're compelled to reduce it again to some sort of
> > > > black-and-white biblical parable where you're the fount/vessel/channel
> > > > of perfect truth, and everyone else is referred to in terms of
> > > > contempt.
> > > >
> > > > You really are not of this world at all, you have that part correct.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> >
> > Me too. Like most folks.
>
> That is not what I discern.

Regardless of your claims of discernment....

>
> > > Sorry my choice
> > > bothers you.
> >
> > Well, I suppose then I can extend the same apology to you. I'm sorry
> > for trying to engage you in some honest debate.
>
> Without truth there can be no honesty.
>
> With truth there is no debate.

OK.

>
> It remains my choice to stick with the latter.

Improve your adhesive.

>
> > > Please forgive me for all my iniquities.
> >
> > No need. Better to fix your iniquities instead of just apologizing
> > about them.
>
> Only the LORD, Whom I love and serve with all my heart, soul, mind, and
> strength has that power :-)

Pray harder then. Apologizing here wont fix them.

<snip>

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > >
> > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > >
> > > > <snip>
> > > >
> > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > >
> > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > in intellectually honest discourse, why do you simply explain the
> > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > are two different things."
> >
> > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > assertion.
> >
> > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > NGs, by the way.
>
> It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

Likewise.

> Sorry if my choice
> bothers you.

Nothing to apologize for, but thanks anyways.

<snip>

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Ernst Primer wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > > > > > engage
> > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse,
> > > > >
> > > > > GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> > > > > discourse.
> > > >
> > > > That's nice. Again, my point stands.
> > >
> > > Not if you understand what goal means.
> >
> > Actually, ironically, my point stands **because** you're unable to
> > reliably demonstrate comprehension of what intellectually honest
> > discourse means.
>
> In your opinion.
>
> > > > > > why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > >
> > > > > Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> > > > > the differences in the meanings of different words.
> > > >
> > > > Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
> > > > assertion.
> > >
> > > Actually, I was answering your question:
> >
> > Yes, and I already explained why your answer is inadequate. See my
> > comment immediately above.
>
> Sorry you do not like my answer.

Sorrow doesn't get you where you need to be.

>
> > > "Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
> > > 'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"
> > >
> > > > Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
> > > > explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.
> > >
> > > Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
> > > to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
> > > lacks the ability to comprehend.
> >
> > And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
> > skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
> > to the lack of comprehension in the other.
>
> Something may be true and yet be unrelated to a discourse.

The above statement provides a good example.

>
> > > > > > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > > > > > sentence,
> > > > >
> > > > > Then you do not need an explanation of it.
> > > >
> > > > For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
> > > > the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
> > > > writing.
> > > >
> > > > However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
> > > > to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
> > > > tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
> > > > because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
> > > > words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
> > > > assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
> > > > the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."
> > >
> > > Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:
> > >
> > > Science is to scientific method as
> > >
> > > (1) Art is to artistic licence
> > > (2) Genetics is to genetic testing
> > > (3) Law is to lawyering
> > > (4) Biology is to bioengineering
> > > (5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
> > > (6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
> > > (7) Medicine is to medical care
> >
> > Andrew!!!!!!!!!
> >
> > I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!
>
> All praises belong to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
> heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
>
> > YOU DID IT!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
>
> That would be my choice to follow my LORD's guidance about both the
> content and the timing.

You have the choice to do whatever you like and provide the
rationale of your choosing for it. Likewise, I have the choice to
comment on it however I like.

>
> > > > > > but you
> > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > > > > > "clarify."
> > > > >
> > > > > Comprehension requires no clarification.
> > > >
> > > > See above.
> > >
> > > Please do.
> >
> > I appreciate what you wrote above
>
> You are welcome :-)
>
> > (although I still disagree with
> > you).
>
> (Your choice :-)
>
> > I'm much more interested in why it required the metaphorical
> > equivalent of tooth-pulling to get you to type out the equivalent of an
> > additional short paragraph; why you resisted it so mightily.
>
> The timing is His.

God spoke to you and told you to resist answering a simple question
for that long?

> GOD's timing is impeccable.

By definition. However, as a man, yours isn't.

> The LORD is the source
> of all my strength. All praises belong to LORD Jesus Christ, Whom I
> love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
>
> > > > > > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > > > > > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
> > > > >
> > > > > Problems do not have symptoms.
> > > >
> > > > I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
> > > > "definition of the word symptom"
> > > > (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
> > > > definition entry:
> > > >
> > > > "anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
> > > > existence"
> > >
> > > Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.
> >
> > You're no longer arguing with me, but with Princeton University. Just
> > so happens I agree with their definition of the word "symptom" (hence
> > my manner of word usage), and I disagree with yours.
>
> You will have to make up your mind.

Done and done.

>
> > Language is imperfect, and truth is sometimes "in between the lines."
>
> All creations of man are imperfect for it is written that we all fall
> short of GOD's glory.

That includes you.

>
> > > > I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> > > > things tend to accompany your interactions with people,
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> >
> > Wrong again, that's a fact.
>
> Your belief.

Actually, it's documented. :-)

>
> > Wasn't your internet service yanked
> > specifically because of the nature of your interactions with people on
> > these very NGs?
>
> No.

Please set the record straight then.

>
> > Didn't it have something to do with you violating
> > official rules regarding interactions with others?
>
> Thankfully, my access to the Internet via BellSouth has never been
> interrupted.

So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation? I
apologize if I got my facts wrong.

>
> An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> to court:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
>
> > > > which I assert
> > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > existence.
> > >
> > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> >
> > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > behavior.
>
> In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.

In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.

>
> > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > others.
> > >
> > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > that bothers you or others.
> >
> > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > beliefs, actually.
>
> The truth is independent of my beliefs.

By definition.

>
> > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > you interact with others, however.
>
> Your choice.

As always.

>
> > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > think that's the only reason.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > of others.
> >
> > Probably a safe choice.
>
> Safety resides only with the LORD.

If you say so.

>
> > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> >
> > Not just mine.
>
> Only the LORD's judgment matters.

For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
**ultimately** matters.

>
> > > > Your faults are
> > > > still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.
> > >
> > > It remains my choice to walk with the LORD despite all my faults which
> > > have never been hidden.
> >
> > Good. And I would never want to take that away from you.
>
> You do not have that power even if you have that want.

<snip>

That's fortunate then, because if I had the power I still would not
want to take that away from you.

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > > > > > > engage
> > > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> > > > > > discourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > That's nice. Again, my point stands.
> > > >
> > > > Not if you understand what goal means.
> > >
> > > Actually, ironically, my point stands **because** you're unable to
> > > reliably demonstrate comprehension of what intellectually honest
> > > discourse means.
> >
> > In your opinion.
> >
> > > > > > > why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> > > > > > the differences in the meanings of different words.
> > > > >
> > > > > Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
> > > > > assertion.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I was answering your question:
> > >
> > > Yes, and I already explained why your answer is inadequate. See my
> > > comment immediately above.
> >
> > Sorry you do not like my answer.
>
> Sorrow doesn't get you where you need to be.

Correct.

One reason to continue walking with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is **the**
way, the truth, and the life.

> > > > "Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
> > > > 'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"
> > > >
> > > > > Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
> > > > > explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
> > > > to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
> > > > lacks the ability to comprehend.
> > >
> > > And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
> > > skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
> > > to the lack of comprehension in the other.
> >
> > Something may be true and yet be unrelated to a discourse.
>
> The above statement provides a good example.

As does the one below:

"And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
to the lack of comprehension in the other."

> > > > > > > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > > > > > > sentence,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then you do not need an explanation of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
> > > > > the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
> > > > > writing.
> > > > >
> > > > > However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
> > > > > to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
> > > > > tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
> > > > > because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
> > > > > words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
> > > > > assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
> > > > > the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:
> > > >
> > > > Science is to scientific method as
> > > >
> > > > (1) Art is to artistic licence
> > > > (2) Genetics is to genetic testing
> > > > (3) Law is to lawyering
> > > > (4) Biology is to bioengineering
> > > > (5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
> > > > (6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
> > > > (7) Medicine is to medical care
> > >
> > > Andrew!!!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!
> >
> > All praises belong to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
> > heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
> >
> > > YOU DID IT!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> >
> > That would be my choice to follow my LORD's guidance about both the
> > content and the timing.
>
> You have the choice to do whatever you like and provide the
> rationale of your choosing for it. Likewise, I have the choice to
> comment on it however I like.

Be my guest so that others like Gary G will not be able to say that
they have no idea what it would be like to chat with me.

> > > > > > > but you
> > > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > > > > > > "clarify."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Comprehension requires no clarification.
> > > > >
> > > > > See above.
> > > >
> > > > Please do.
> > >
> > > I appreciate what you wrote above
> >
> > You are welcome :-)
> >
> > > (although I still disagree with
> > > you).
> >
> > (Your choice :-)
> >
> > > I'm much more interested in why it required the metaphorical
> > > equivalent of tooth-pulling to get you to type out the equivalent of an
> > > additional short paragraph; why you resisted it so mightily.
> >
> > The timing is His.
>
> God spoke to you and told you to resist answering a simple question
> for that long?

Those who walk with the LORD are tied to Him so that they become aware
of His guidance.

> > GOD's timing is impeccable.
>
> By definition. However, as a man, yours isn't.

Thankfully, it has been His timing and not mine :-)

May Gary G appreciate His timing :-)

> > The LORD is the source
> > of all my strength. All praises belong to LORD Jesus Christ, Whom I
> > love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
> >
> > > > > > > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > > > > > > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Problems do not have symptoms.
> > > > >
> > > > > I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
> > > > > "definition of the word symptom"
> > > > > (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
> > > > > definition entry:
> > > > >
> > > > > "anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
> > > > > existence"
> > > >
> > > > Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.
> > >
> > > You're no longer arguing with me, but with Princeton University. Just
> > > so happens I agree with their definition of the word "symptom" (hence
> > > my manner of word usage), and I disagree with yours.
> >
> > You will have to make up your mind.
>
> Done and done.

"Those with two minds have two faces."

> >
> > > Language is imperfect, and truth is sometimes "in between the lines."
> >
> > All creations of man are imperfect for it is written that we all fall
> > short of GOD's glory.
>
> That includes you.

Correct. This is one reason why no matter how perfectly my LORD
reshapes me, my need for Him remains.

> > > > > I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> > > > > things tend to accompany your interactions with people,
> > > >
> > > > In your opinion.
> > >
> > > Wrong again, that's a fact.
> >
> > Your belief.
>
> Actually, it's documented. :-)

What is documented are the works of the LORD. Your judging them to be
"bad" is meaningless to those who are able to discern the truth.

> > > Wasn't your internet service yanked
> > > specifically because of the nature of your interactions with people on
> > > these very NGs?
> >
> > No.
>
> Please set the record straight then.

Done.

> >
> > > Didn't it have something to do with you violating
> > > official rules regarding interactions with others?
> >
> > Thankfully, my access to the Internet via BellSouth has never been
> > interrupted.
>
> So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?

No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
Google servers through BellSouth wires.

> I
> apologize if I got my facts wrong.

It would be my choice to forgive you.

> >
> > An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> > Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> > consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> > to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> > rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> > ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> > to court:
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
> >
> > > > > which I assert
> > > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > > existence.
> > > >
> > > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> > >
> > > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > > behavior.
> >
> > In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.
>
> In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.

Concepts are by definition limited.

> > > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > > others.
> > > >
> > > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > > that bothers you or others.
> > >
> > > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > > beliefs, actually.
> >
> > The truth is independent of my beliefs.
>
> By definition.

and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger that any
language constructed to describe it.

> > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > you interact with others, however.
> >
> > Your choice.
>
> As always.

Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.

> > > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > > think that's the only reason.
> > > >
> > > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > > of others.
> > >
> > > Probably a safe choice.
> >
> > Safety resides only with the LORD.
>
> If you say so.

It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

> > > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > > >
> > > > In your opinion.
> > >
> > > Not just mine.
> >
> > Only the LORD's judgment matters.
>
> For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
> **ultimately** matters.

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

> > > > > Your faults are
> > > > > still there, hiding (not well) behind your religiousity.
> > > >
> > > > It remains my choice to walk with the LORD despite all my faults which
> > > > have never been hidden.
> > >
> > > Good. And I would never want to take that away from you.
> >
> > You do not have that power even if you have that want.
>
> <snip>
>
> That's fortunate then, because if I had the power I still would not
> want to take that away from you.

Fortune does not exist...

Proverbs 16:33

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread 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

Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Science and the scientific method are two different things.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Please clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > disagrees with you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I am not able to write more plainly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You're simply not trying hard enough.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > The ability to comprehend what is written comes from GOD and will not
> > > > > > > > > > > > come from me regardless of my efforts.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to engage
> > > > > > > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse, why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > To clarify to you, I comprehend the above quoted sentence, but you
> > > > > > > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > > > > > > assertion.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > This is a symptom of the larger problem with your behavior on these
> > > > > > > > > > > NGs, by the way.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Dr. Andrew, I'm asking you to explain a point you made.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The sentence you asked me to explain is self-explanatory and written
> > > > > > > > very plainly.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only the self-centered blame the listener when the fault is with the
> > > > > > > speaker.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only the insecure feel blamed when no blame has been assigned.
> > > > >
> > > > > Only the intellectually lazy duck out of explaining their assertions
> > > > > by implying a lack of comprehension ability in their interlocutors.
> > > >
> > > > That is not what I discern.
> > >
> > > Regardless....
> >
> > It would be your choice to disregard the truth.
>
> As it is yours.

Those who are able to discern the truth are incapable of disregarding
it.

> > > > > > > Your assertion wasn't self-explanatory, it was an assertion
> > > > > > > that requires explanation of its evidentiary basis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, in my words. I'm asking you for an explanation of the
> > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion. You didn't state one. Perhaps you
> > > > > don't think one is required. That's a symptom of your larger problem.
> > > >
> > > > Sorry you do not like what I have written.
> > >
> > > Sorry you misunderstood my statement as being one based on
> > > aesthetics.
> >
> > The opinions of man are based on aesthetics more than on the truth.
>
> You said about two posts ago: "It remains my choice to not guess at
> what the LORD sees in the hearts of others."

Correct.

> Take your own advice, and take my word as well.

Choice is not advice.

> Again, I'm sorry you misunderstood (now
> deliberately misconstruing, apparently) my point as being one based on
> aesthetics.

There has been no misunderstanding.


> > > > > > > I agree that your
> > > > > > > sentence is plain.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yet you do not understand it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong.
> > > >
> > > > That is not what I discern.
> > >
> > > Regardless...
> >
> > Again, it remains your choice to disregard the truth.
>
> And again, it is your choice to do the same as well, despite your
> proclamations of contrary discernment.

Truth discernment is not contrary discernment.

> > > > > > > > > If this is
> > > > > > > > > how you react to similar requests from others, then that would explain
> > > > > > > > > why so many are simply not going to take you up on your offer of
> > > > > > > > > on-line "chat" (and I use the term loosely here).
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Thankfully, most folks have God's gift of reading comprehension :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Which, as indicated by your comments, appears to be escaping you
> > > > > > > today :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Actually, God's gift of reading comprehension is a lasting one. Those
> > > > > > who have it would know this.
> > > > >
> > > > > You don't have it, or else you would have comprehended what I have
> > > > > told you several times now.
> > > >
> > > > Your choice to continue this discourse reveals your insincerity even to
> > > > the undiscerning.
> > >
> > > Your choice to stoop to slandering me with baseless charges of
> > > insincerity reveals you as a spiteful person. That hurt. I suppose you
> > > can have the other cheek.
> >
> > Would be glad to look at your other cheek.
>
> It's waiting for you to slander it as well.

Describing the flaws that are seen is not slander.

> > > > > > > Again, to clarify for the second time, nowhere did I ask you to
> > > > > > > restate your comment for comprehensibility.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And so I have not.
> > > > >
> > > > > Excellent.
> > > >
> > > > The truth is excellent :-)
> > >
> > > Chocolate ice cream's pretty good too.
> >
> > There is no comparison with the truth.
>
> There is no accounting for taste :-)

Your choice.

> > > > > This puts lie to your earlier comment that the problem is
> > > > > one of comprehension.
> > > >
> > > > Would suggest you reread the discourse if you desire to seek the truth.
> > >
> > > Would suggest you reread my words to you if you desire to profit
> > > from this experience in any way at all. At the outset, that's what I'd
> > > hoped about this little chat from the start.
> >
> > Your hope is misplaced.
>
> Of course. Why would you say anything different on a public forum?

When it is the truth.

> > > > > Again, it's not. The problem is you make
> > > > > assertions, and you don't explain the basis for your assertions. That's
> > > > > not fair play.
> > > >
> > > > This is not a game for me.
> > >
> > > If you're free to metaphorize, I'm free to metaphorize.
> >
> > It remains my choice to write truthfully.
>
> That too.

That is not what I discern.

> > > > > > > I understood your comment
> > > > > > > (e.g., where you asserted science and the scientific method are two
> > > > > > > different things).
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And yet you continue to ask for an explanation.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes. Of the *evidentiary* *basis* of your assertion. I never asked
> > > > > for you to aid me in comprehending the assertion itself, and yet you
> > > > > continue to confuse the two. I'll continue to repeat myself if you
> > > > > like.
> > > >
> > > > Your choice.
> > >
> > > Asked you first.
> >
> > Asked and answered.
>
> Likewise.

You were not asked to explain anything.

> > > > > > > I ask you to explain the basis for your assertion, which is a
> > > > > > > common courtesy that intellectually honest people tend to extend to
> > > > > > > each other when one party makes assertions that the other disagrees
> > > > > > > with. This is how people promote greater understanding with each
> > > > > > > other.... OK?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > What you asked was:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Please clarify."
> > > > >
> > > > > Yes.
> > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and not
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "Please show how they are different."
> > > > >
> > > > > You deliberately left out the full response.
> > > >
> > > > The period at the end of a sentence indicates that the writing of a
> > > > thought has been completed.
> > >
> > > The two sentences were clearly collapsed in the paragraph, and the
> > > second sentence clearly referred to the preceding one.
> >
> > The second sentence was meaningless. Without the truth, there is no
> > meaning.
>
> No. Without the truth, there is untruth.

Untruths have no meaning.

> Without meaning, there is
> lack of meaning.

Your sentence is its own example.

> The two are not the same.

Actually, "without meaning" and "lack of meaning" are equivalent.

> Untruths shed meaning just
> like truths do - usually it means someone got their reasons or facts
> wrong, sometimes it means deliberate chicanery.

Errors are not untruths.

> > > > > Another disrespectful
> > > > > and disingenuous debating tactic. The full response was, "Please
> > > > > clarify. Everything I've read, learned, and been taught disagrees with
> > > > > you."
> > > >
> > > > The first sentence is a request.
> > >
> > > Yes.
> > >
> > > > The second sentence is untrue even to
> > > > the undiscerning.
> > >
> > > If you mean we disagree on that point, yes. If you mean that my
> > > assertion is wrong on it's face, you're wrong on yours.
> >
> > People and not things disagree.
>
> Given that things are inanimate objects and can't disagree, and
> disagreement is a state between people, that would logically follow.
>
> >
> > > > > Did you miss that second sentence?
> > > >
> > > > No. It remains untrue.
> > >
> > > I disagree.
> >
> > The truth is independent of your opinions.
>
> As it is similarly orthogonal to yours.

As if you were able to discern the truth.

> > > > > In it, the particular use of the
> > > > > word "clarify" is put in the obvious context of factual disagreement
> > > > > with your assertion.
> > > >
> > > > Untrue statements are meaningless.
> > >
> > > Actually, untrue statements merely mean someone has got their facts
> > > wrong,

Errors are not the same thing as untruths.

> > > or the basis for their statement is deficient or innacurate
> > > somehow. "Meaningless" doesn't capture it.
> >
> > In your opinion.
>
> If you need to say that, OK.
>
> >
> > > > > Instead, you (deliberately?) misconstrue my
> > > > > comment in order to score cheap rhetorical points. Bravo.
> > > >
> > > > It remains my choice to stick with the truth and to ignore that which
> > > > is untrue.
> > >
> > > That's a poor way of excusing your way around snipping my statement
> > > to score a cheap rhetorical point.
> >
> > Ignoring is not snipping.
>
> So what? Whether it's ignoring or snipping doesn't change my point.

Without the truth, your point is meaningless.

> > > Kind of funny, I'm not a big fan of
> > > Pastorio, but he (and others) have accused you of that in the past and
> > > I've never actually had someone do that to me that I can recall in all
> > > my years on Usenet.
> >
> > It is your choice to be bothered by my ignoring the untrue statements
> > that you make.
>
> Not bothered.

The tone of what you write suggests otherwise.

> Second, there's nothing untrue about my statement
> "everything I've learned, read, and have been taught in this area
> disagrees with you."

That is not what I discern.

> You may disbelieve it, but if you call it an utrue
> statement, you are lying.

The untruthful are the quickest to accuse others of lying.

> There's no way for you to know whether the
> statement is untrue or not, logically, on its face, regardless of your
> views on this particular topic area.

What is impossible for man is possible for GOD. The LORD delights in
helping faithful folks do what is otherwise impossible.

> What if "everything I've been
> learned, read, and been taught" in the area of philosophy of science
> was wrong? It would still disagree, just be incorrect. As it stands, I
> don't believe what I've been read, taught, and learned in this area is
> untrue. That doesn't make it untrue that I've been taught it.

The truth is independent of all logical arguments.

> > > > > > > > > If this is
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It is :-)
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Pardon me if I don't take your word on it.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
> > > > > > > > like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest you here next
> > > > > > > > week:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Probably not
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > Yup. You can stop asking me now.
> > > >
> > > > It remains an offer and not a request.
> > >
> > > Whichever.
> >
> > It remains your choice to disregard the truth.
>
> As it remains your choice as well.

Those who have been given the ability to discern the truth have also
been rendered incapable of disregarding the truth.

> > > > > > > unless you clean up your act and start explaining the
> > > > > > > basis of at least some of the assertions you regularly make around
> > > > > > > here.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You remind me of the blind man who would have the seeing explain the
> > > > > > basis for what they see.
> > > > >
> > > > > <sigh> Is any of this sinking in with you at all? I still hold out
> > > > > hope it is. Look, Andrew, what's the point of you asking people to
> > > > > "chat" with you when you follow none of the common-courtesy rules of
> > > > > discourse that people follow when people have disagreements? You made a
> > > > > simple assertion about language, for crying out loud, one of the most
> > > > > subjective, and argue-able areas there is. And yet you can't help
> > > > > yourself, you're compelled to reduce it again to some sort of
> > > > > black-and-white biblical parable where you're the fount/vessel/channel
> > > > > of perfect truth, and everyone else is referred to in terms of
> > > > > contempt.
> > > > >
> > > > > You really are not of this world at all, you have that part correct.
> > > >
> > > > It remains my choice to continue to write truthfully.
> > >
> > > Me too. Like most folks.
> >
> > That is not what I discern.
>
> Regardless of your claims of discernment....

It remains your choice to disregard the truth.

> > > > Sorry my choice
> > > > bothers you.
> > >
> > > Well, I suppose then I can extend the same apology to you. I'm sorry
> > > for trying to engage you in some honest debate.
> >
> > Without truth there can be no honesty.
> >
> > With truth there is no debate.
>
> OK.
>
> >
> > It remains my choice to stick with the latter.
>
> Improve your adhesive.

Your advice is meaningless.

> > > > Please forgive me for all my iniquities.
> > >
> > > No need. Better to fix your iniquities instead of just apologizing
> > > about them.
> >
> > Only the LORD, Whom I love and serve with all my heart, soul, mind, and
> > strength has that power :-)
>
> Pray harder then. Apologizing here wont fix them.

It remains my choice to do both as my LORD guides me in my walk with
Him.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread 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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Andy: Instead of invoking God to duck out of another opportunity to
> > > > > > > > engage
> > > > > > > > in intellectually honest discourse,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > GOD is the truth which should be the goal of any intellectually honest
> > > > > > > discourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > That's nice. Again, my point stands.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not if you understand what goal means.
> > > >
> > > > Actually, ironically, my point stands **because** you're unable to
> > > > reliably demonstrate comprehension of what intellectually honest
> > > > discourse means.
> > >
> > > In your opinion.
> > >
> > > > > > > > why don't you simply explain the
> > > > > > > > evidentiary basis for your assertion "science and the scientific method
> > > > > > > > are two different things."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Those who have reading comprehension do not need evidence to comprehend
> > > > > > > the differences in the meanings of different words.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Now you're simply being redundant, and just restating your original
> > > > > > assertion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, I was answering your question:
> > > >
> > > > Yes, and I already explained why your answer is inadequate. See my
> > > > comment immediately above.
> > >
> > > Sorry you do not like my answer.
> >
> > Sorrow doesn't get you where you need to be.
>
> Correct.
>
> One reason to continue walking with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is **the**
> way, the truth, and the life.
>
> > > > > "Why don't you simply explain the evidentiary basis for your assertion
> > > > > 'science and the scientific method are two different things.' ?"
> > > > >
> > > > > > Mutatis mutandis, those who have communication skills
> > > > > > explain the basis for their positions when they differ with others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, those who have communication skills still have the free will
> > > > > to choose to **not** explain something especially when their audience
> > > > > lacks the ability to comprehend.
> > > >
> > > > And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
> > > > skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
> > > > to the lack of comprehension in the other.
> > >
> > > Something may be true and yet be unrelated to a discourse.
> >
> > The above statement provides a good example.
>
> As does the one below:
>
> "And, mutatis mutandis, those who do **not** have the communication
> skills often ascribe the results of their deficiencies in communication
> to the lack of comprehension in the other."

The inability to notice a relationship does not make the relationship
nonexistant.

>
> > > > > > > > To clarify to you, I actually comprehended the above quoted
> > > > > > > > sentence,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Then you do not need an explanation of it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For the third time, the issue is not about the comprehensibility of
> > > > > > the sentence, nor did I ask you to aid me in comprehending your
> > > > > > writing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, for the third time now, I consider it quite fair to ask you
> > > > > > to provide evidence for your assertion, since I and most others do not
> > > > > > tend to believe people, merely because they say so. Also, simply
> > > > > > because the word "science" and "scientific method" are two different
> > > > > > words has no bearing on whether they refer to the same thing (which I
> > > > > > assert they do) or two different things (which you assert). Neither is
> > > > > > the evidentiary basis for your assertion "self-explanatory."
> > > > >
> > > > > Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:
> > > > >
> > > > > Science is to scientific method as
> > > > >
> > > > > (1) Art is to artistic licence
> > > > > (2) Genetics is to genetic testing
> > > > > (3) Law is to lawyering
> > > > > (4) Biology is to bioengineering
> > > > > (5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
> > > > > (6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
> > > > > (7) Medicine is to medical care
> > > >
> > > > Andrew!!!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!
> > >
> > > All praises belong to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
> > > heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
> > >
> > > > YOU DID IT!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > > > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > >
> > > That would be my choice to follow my LORD's guidance about both the
> > > content and the timing.
> >
> > You have the choice to do whatever you like and provide the
> > rationale of your choosing for it. Likewise, I have the choice to
> > comment on it however I like.
>
> Be my guest so that others like Gary G will not be able to say that
> they have no idea what it would be like to chat with me.

I already know full well what it's like to chat with you. The term
"Brer Chung" seems to fit.

>
> > > > > > > > but you
> > > > > > > > have not clarified the evidence or reasoning for this (dubious)
> > > > > > > > assertion, which is what I was asking you when I asked you to
> > > > > > > > "clarify."
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Comprehension requires no clarification.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > See above.
> > > > >
> > > > > Please do.
> > > >
> > > > I appreciate what you wrote above
> > >
> > > You are welcome :-)
> > >
> > > > (although I still disagree with
> > > > you).
> > >
> > > (Your choice :-)
> > >
> > > > I'm much more interested in why it required the metaphorical
> > > > equivalent of tooth-pulling to get you to type out the equivalent of an
> > > > additional short paragraph; why you resisted it so mightily.
> > >
> > > The timing is His.
> >
> > God spoke to you and told you to resist answering a simple question
> > for that long?
>
> Those who walk with the LORD are tied to Him so that they become aware
> of His guidance.

I'm just suprised your LORD would find any use to having you resist
answering such a simple question so strenuously.

>
> > > GOD's timing is impeccable.
> >
> > By definition. However, as a man, yours isn't.
>
> Thankfully, it has been His timing and not mine :-)
>
> May Gary G appreciate His timing :-)

Receiving guidance is not the same as entirely relinquishing control
to an outside force, unless you're suggesting that guidance to you is
tantamount to a form of spiritual possession. You may be receiving
spiritual guidance from a force with impeccable timing, but your timing
is only as good as you are at following the God of Your Understanding's
guidance.

>
> > > The LORD is the source
> > > of all my strength. All praises belong to LORD Jesus Christ, Whom I
> > > love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
> > >
> > > > > > > > If you insist in ducking out, I would submit this is a symptom of
> > > > > > > > the larger problem with your behavior on these NGs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Problems do not have symptoms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I found this under the first Google entry listed for the search term
> > > > > > "definition of the word symptom"
> > > > > > (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/symptom). From the very first
> > > > > > definition entry:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > "anything that accompanies X and is regarded as an indication of X's
> > > > > > existence"
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, problems do not have symptoms. People have symptoms.
> > > >
> > > > You're no longer arguing with me, but with Princeton University. Just
> > > > so happens I agree with their definition of the word "symptom" (hence
> > > > my manner of word usage), and I disagree with yours.
> > >
> > > You will have to make up your mind.
> >
> > Done and done.
>
> "Those with two minds have two faces."

Nice to hear.

>
> > >
> > > > Language is imperfect, and truth is sometimes "in between the lines."
> > >
> > > All creations of man are imperfect for it is written that we all fall
> > > short of GOD's glory.
> >
> > That includes you.
>
> Correct. This is one reason why no matter how perfectly my LORD
> reshapes me, my need for Him remains.

You could say that.

>
> > > > > > I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> > > > > > things tend to accompany your interactions with people,
> > > > >
> > > > > In your opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Wrong again, that's a fact.
> > >
> > > Your belief.
> >
> > Actually, it's documented. :-)
>
> What is documented are the works of the LORD.

As is USENET.

> Your judging them to be
> "bad" is meaningless to those who are able to discern the truth.

Do tell. Apparently this particular power of truth discernment you
proclaim for yourself renders much of what you hear meaningless, and
removes your capacity to choose right and wrong.

>
> > > > Wasn't your internet service yanked
> > > > specifically because of the nature of your interactions with people on
> > > > these very NGs?
> > >
> > > No.
> >
> > Please set the record straight then.
>
> Done.

Gracias.

>
> > >
> > > > Didn't it have something to do with you violating
> > > > official rules regarding interactions with others?
> > >
> > > Thankfully, my access to the Internet via BellSouth has never been
> > > interrupted.
> >
> > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
>
> No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> Google servers through BellSouth wires.

My apologies. I did not run an IP trace.

>
> > I
> > apologize if I got my facts wrong.
>
> It would be my choice to forgive you.

Such is the nature of apologies.

>
> > >
> > > An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> > > Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> > > consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> > > to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> > > rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> > > ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> > > to court:
> > >
> > > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
> > >
> > > > > > which I assert
> > > > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > > > existence.
> > > > >
> > > > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> > > >
> > > > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > > > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > > > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > > > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > > > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > > > behavior.
> > >
> > > In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.
> >
> > In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.
>
> Concepts are by definition limited.

I meant to say, overly limited.

>
> > > > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > > > others.
> > > > >
> > > > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > > > that bothers you or others.
> > > >
> > > > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > > > beliefs, actually.
> > >
> > > The truth is independent of my beliefs.
> >
> > By definition.
>
> and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger that any
> language constructed to describe it.

Exactly. Language is imperfect, as are those who wield it.

>
> > > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > > you interact with others, however.
> > >
> > > Your choice.
> >
> > As always.
>
> Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.

Except when it comes to your capacity to choose disregard the truth
- didn't you say that capacity no longer exists?

>
> > > > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > > > think that's the only reason.
> > > > >
> > > > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > > > of others.
> > > >
> > > > Probably a safe choice.
> > >
> > > Safety resides only with the LORD.
> >
> > If you say so.
>
> It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.

As it is mine despite your contrary proclamations.

>
> > > > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > > > >
> > > > > In your opinion.
> > > >
> > > > Not just mine.
> > >
> > > Only the LORD's judgment matters.
> >
> > For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
> > **ultimately** matters.
>
> The LORD continues to guide me in all that I say, do, or write.

You should work harder on following his guidance more precisely.

Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:

<snip>

> > > Sorrow doesn't get you where you need to be.
> >
> > Correct.
> >
> > One reason to continue walking with LORD Jesus Christ, Who is **the**
> > way, the truth, and the life.

<snip>

> > > > > > Perhaps this will help you... if not you perhaps others:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Science is to scientific method as
> > > > > >
> > > > > > (1) Art is to artistic licence
> > > > > > (2) Genetics is to genetic testing
> > > > > > (3) Law is to lawyering
> > > > > > (4) Biology is to bioengineering
> > > > > > (5) Chemistry is to chemical engineering
> > > > > > (6) Mathematics is to mathematical modelling
> > > > > > (7) Medicine is to medical care
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew!!!!!!!!!
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm so proud of you!!!!!!!
> > > >
> > > > All praises belong to my heavenly Father, Whom I love with all my
> > > > heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
> > > >
> > > > > YOU DID IT!!!!!!! :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > > > > :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-) :-)
> > > >
> > > > That would be my choice to follow my LORD's guidance about both the
> > > > content and the timing.
> > >
> > > You have the choice to do whatever you like and provide the
> > > rationale of your choosing for it. Likewise, I have the choice to
> > > comment on it however I like.
> >
> > Be my guest so that others like Gary G will not be able to say that
> > they have no idea what it would be like to chat with me.
>
> I already know full well what it's like to chat with you.

This is not for your benefit.

> The term
> "Brer Chung" seems to fit.

In your opinion.

<snip>

> > Those who walk with the LORD are tied to Him so that they become aware
> > of His guidance.
>
> I'm just suprised your LORD would find any use to having you resist
> answering such a simple question so strenuously.

The choice to follow the LORD's guidance requires no effort.

> > > > GOD's timing is impeccable.
> > >
> > > By definition. However, as a man, yours isn't.
> >
> > Thankfully, it has been His timing and not mine :-)
> >
> > May Gary G appreciate His timing :-)
>
> Receiving guidance is not the same as entirely relinquishing control
> to an outside force, unless you're suggesting that guidance to you is
> tantamount to a form of spiritual possession.

The LORD's guidance comes only to those who have surrendered to Him.

> You may be receiving
> spiritual guidance from a force with impeccable timing, but your timing
> is only as good as you are at following the God of Your Understanding's
> guidance.

There is only one GOD and He is the LORD. He created all things and is
sovereign having established even the natural laws that govern the
universe. He is the Giver of life and free will. Only the LORD's
opinion matters.

> > > > The LORD is the source
> > > > of all my strength. All praises belong to LORD Jesus Christ, Whom I
> > > > love with all my heart, soul, mind, and strength :-)
> > > >

<snip>

> > > > You will have to make up your mind.
> > >
> > > Done and done.
> >
> > "Those with two minds have two faces."
>
> Nice to hear.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > > Language is imperfect, and truth is sometimes "in between the lines."
> > > >
> > > > All creations of man are imperfect for it is written that we all fall
> > > > short of GOD's glory.
> > >
> > > That includes you.
> >
> > Correct. This is one reason why no matter how perfectly my LORD
> > reshapes me, my need for Him remains.
>
> You could say that.
>
> >
> > > > > > > I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally, bad
> > > > > > > things tend to accompany your interactions with people,
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong again, that's a fact.
> > > >
> > > > Your belief.
> > >
> > > Actually, it's documented. :-)
> >
> > What is documented are the works of the LORD.
>
> As is USENET.

Correct.

> > Your judging them to be
> > "bad" is meaningless to those who are able to discern the truth.
>
> Do tell.

Done.

> Apparently this particular power of truth discernment

The ability to discern the truth is no more a power than the LORD's
gift of vision.

> you
> proclaim for yourself

Those who receive GOD's gift of truth discernment receive it through
His grace and not through their own proclamation.

> renders much of what you hear meaningless,

Filtering is a blessing.

> and
> removes your capacity to choose right and wrong.

Actually, the ability to discern the truth enhances the ability to
choose right from wrong.

> > > > > Wasn't your internet service yanked
> > > > > specifically because of the nature of your interactions with people on
> > > > > these very NGs?
> > > >
> > > > No.
> > >
> > > Please set the record straight then.
> >
> > Done.
>
> Gracias.

All praises belong to the LORD, Whom I love with all my heart, soul,
mind, and strength :-)

> > > >
> > > > > Didn't it have something to do with you violating
> > > > > official rules regarding interactions with others?
> > > >
> > > > Thankfully, my access to the Internet via BellSouth has never been
> > > > interrupted.
> > >
> > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> >
> > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
>
> My apologies.

Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.

> I did not run an IP trace.

Yours is an illustration of the wisdom in the LORD's suggestion to
leave judging to the omniscient (Matthew 7).

> > > I
> > > apologize if I got my facts wrong.
> >
> > It would be my choice to forgive you.
>
> Such is the nature of apologies.

Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.

> > > > An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> > > > Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> > > > consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> > > > to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> > > > rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> > > > ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> > > > to court:
> > > >
> > > > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
> > > >
> > > > > > > which I assert
> > > > > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > > > > existence.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> > > > >
> > > > > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > > > > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > > > > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > > > > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > > > > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > > > > behavior.
> > > >
> > > > In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.
> > >
> > > In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.
> >
> > Concepts are by definition limited.
>
> I meant to say, overly limited.

Then you meant to offer a meaningless opinion.

> > > > > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > > > > others.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > > > > that bothers you or others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > > > > beliefs, actually.
> > > >
> > > > The truth is independent of my beliefs.
> > >
> > > By definition.
> >
> > and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger than any
> > language constructed to describe it.
>
> Exactly. Language is imperfect, as are those who wield it.
>
> > > > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > > > you interact with others, however.
> > > >
> > > > Your choice.
> > >
> > > As always.
> >
> > Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.
>
> Except when it comes to your capacity to choose disregard the truth
> - didn't you say that capacity no longer exists?

Loss of ability is not loss of free will.

> > > > > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > > > > think that's the only reason.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > > > > of others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Probably a safe choice.
> > > >
> > > > Safety resides only with the LORD.
> > >
> > > If you say so.
> >
> > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
>
> As it is mine despite your contrary proclamations.

If this had been your choice, there would have been no need for you to
apologize earlier for bearing false witness.

> > > > > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In your opinion.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not just mine.
> > > >
> > > > Only the LORD's judgment matters.
> > >
> > > For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
> > > **ultimately** matters.
> >
> > The LORD continues to guide me in all that I say, do, or write.
>
> You should work harder on following his guidance more precisely.

In your untruthful opinion, which is meaningless.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here this Thursday:

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

Ernst Primer wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The LORD continues to guide me in everything I say, do, or write.
> > > > >
> > > > > Not everything.
> > > >
> > > > In everything.
> > >
> > > That would imply you've *never* had a moment (of "weakness" perhaps)
> > > where the God of your understanding has not guided you in everything
> > > you say, do, or write.
> >
> > The LORD does not have moments of weakness.
>
> But you do.

The LORD's guidance comes from Him and not from self.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here this Thursday:

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

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > > > >
> > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> > > >
> > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
> > >
> > > My apologies.
> >
> > Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.
>
> No false witness was borne

That is not what I have discerned.

> nor was any forgiveness asked for such
> an act.

It would be your choice to withdraw your request to be forgiven.

> My apology was for believing something said by another that was
> not true, based on your correction of the record.

Propagating the false witness of another is the same as bearing false
witness.

> If you wish to
> forgive that error, or to forgive me for a sin that was neither
> committed nor apologized for, that is your choice.

It is my choice to forgive your trespass.

> >
> > > I did not run an IP trace.

It would be your choice to use this deficiency to justify your false
witness.

> > Yours is an illustration of the wisdom in the LORD's suggestion to
> > leave judging to the omniscient (Matthew 7).
> >
> > > > > I
> > > > > apologize if I got my facts wrong.
> > > >
> > > > It would be my choice to forgive you.
> > >
> > > Such is the nature of apologies.
> >
> > Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.
>
> No trespass was asked forgiveness for, as none was committed. Above,
> I say "I apologize if I got my facts wrong."

Getting your facts wrong about someone is bearing false witness
concerning that person.

> I did not ask forgiveness
> for repeating untruths about you as if they were true.

Repeating untruths about someone as if they were truths is bearing
false withness concerning that person.

> >
> > > > > > An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> > > > > > Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> > > > > > consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> > > > > > to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> > > > > > rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> > > > > > ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> > > > > > to court:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > which I assert
> > > > > > > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > > > > > > existence.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > > > > > > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > > > > > > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > > > > > > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > > > > > > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > > > > > > behavior.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.
> > > > >
> > > > > In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.
> > > >
> > > > Concepts are by definition limited.
> > >
> > > I meant to say, overly limited.
> >
> > Then you meant to offer a meaningless opinion.
>
> In your opinion. Again, your concept of discourse and communication
> is overly limited.

The truth remains that a signature is not part of any written discourse
despite their both being part of a written communication.

> > > > > > > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > > > > > > that bothers you or others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > > > > > > beliefs, actually.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The truth is independent of my beliefs.
> > > > >
> > > > > By definition.
> > > >
> > > > and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger than any
> > > > language constructed to describe it.
> > >
> > > Exactly. Language is imperfect, as are those who wield it.
> > >
> > > > > > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > > > > > you interact with others, however.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your choice.
> > > > >
> > > > > As always.
> > > >
> > > > Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.
> > >
> > > Except when it comes to your capacity to choose disregard the truth
> > > - didn't you say that capacity no longer exists?
> >
> > Loss of ability is not loss of free will.
>
> Ability and capacity are not the same thing.

They are in your context.

> > > > > > > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > > > > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > > > > > > think that's the only reason.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > > > > > > of others.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Probably a safe choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Safety resides only with the LORD.
> > > > >
> > > > > If you say so.
> > > >
> > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > >
> > > As it is mine despite your contrary proclamations.
> >
> > If this had been your choice, there would have been no need for you to
> > apologize earlier for bearing false witness.
>
> There was no apology tendered for bearing false witness, despite
> your words indicating otherwise.

See above.

> If I had not asked you to verify the
> information and identify what was false and what was not, then false
> witness may eventually have been committed.

You asked for verification **after** being called on the false witness.


This would be analogous to a murderer asking about the law against
murder in order to use his/her question as evidence of ignorance and
ignorance as defense for the crime.

> > > > > > > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > > > > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In your opinion.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not just mine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Only the LORD's judgment matters.
> > > > >
> > > > > For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
> > > > > **ultimately** matters.
> > > >
> > > > The LORD continues to guide me in all that I say, do, or write.
> > >
> > > You should work harder on following his guidance more precisely.
> >
> > In your untruthful opinion, which is meaningless.
>
> ????
>
> You're saying you don't need to work harder?

What has been written points to your ignorance.

> Self-evidently untrue,
> independent of my words, or your statements about my words.

Without the LORD, all original thoughts from you will remain untrue.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here this Thursday:

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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> > > > >
> > > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
> > > >
> > > > My apologies.
> > >
> > > Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.
> >
> > No false witness was borne
>
> That is not what I have discerned.

It is your choice to proclaim an untruth as a truth.

>
> > nor was any forgiveness asked for such
> > an act.
>
> It would be your choice to withdraw your request to be forgiven.

That may be true, but no request to be forgiven was withdrawn,
despite your proclamations of discerning otherwise.

>
> > My apology was for believing something said by another that was
> > not true, based on your correction of the record.
>
> Propagating the false witness of another is the same as bearing false
> witness.

Requesting verification of ostensibly truthful testimony from the
subject of said testimony is not the same as bearing false witness.

>
> > If you wish to
> > forgive that error, or to forgive me for a sin that was neither
> > committed nor apologized for, that is your choice.
>
> It is my choice to forgive your trespass.
>
> > >
> > > > I did not run an IP trace.
>
> It would be your choice to use this deficiency to justify your false
> witness.

It would be your choice to focus on this deficiency to mistakenly
bolster your false claim of false witness.

>
> > > Yours is an illustration of the wisdom in the LORD's suggestion to
> > > leave judging to the omniscient (Matthew 7).
> > >
> > > > > > I
> > > > > > apologize if I got my facts wrong.
> > > > >
> > > > > It would be my choice to forgive you.
> > > >
> > > > Such is the nature of apologies.
> > >
> > > Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.
> >
> > No trespass was asked forgiveness for, as none was committed. Above,
> > I say "I apologize if I got my facts wrong."
>
> Getting your facts wrong about someone is bearing false witness
> concerning that person.

Asking for verification of incorrect facts from the subject of said
incorrect facts is not bearing false witness. Instead, stating the
facts without attempting to verify said facts in any manner would be
bearing false witness. Also, accusing others of misdeeds they have
clearly not committed would be bearing false witness (looks at Dr.
Chung).

>
> > I did not ask forgiveness
> > for repeating untruths about you as if they were true.
>
> Repeating untruths about someone as if they were truths is bearing
> false withness concerning that person.

Requesting verification of assertions stated by another as truth is
not the same as bearing false witness. Those who describe the behavior
of such a person as "bearing false witness" ironically bear false
witness themselves.

>
> > >
> > > > > > > An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> > > > > > > Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> > > > > > > consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> > > > > > > to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> > > > > > > rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> > > > > > > ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> > > > > > > to court:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > which I assert
> > > > > > > > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > > > > > > > existence.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > > > > > > > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > > > > > > > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > > > > > > > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > > > > > > > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > > > > > > > behavior.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.
> > > > >
> > > > > Concepts are by definition limited.
> > > >
> > > > I meant to say, overly limited.
> > >
> > > Then you meant to offer a meaningless opinion.
> >
> > In your opinion. Again, your concept of discourse and communication
> > is overly limited.
>
> The truth remains that a signature is not part of any written discourse
> despite their both being part of a written communication.

The self-evident truth is that your signature is part of **this**
written discourse, at this very moment, which puts lie to your
statement, above. :-)

>
> > > > > > > > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > > > > > > > that bothers you or others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > > > > > > > beliefs, actually.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The truth is independent of my beliefs.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > By definition.
> > > > >
> > > > > and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger than any
> > > > > language constructed to describe it.
> > > >
> > > > Exactly. Language is imperfect, as are those who wield it.
> > > >
> > > > > > > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > > > > > > you interact with others, however.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Your choice.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > As always.
> > > > >
> > > > > Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.
> > > >
> > > > Except when it comes to your capacity to choose disregard the truth
> > > > - didn't you say that capacity no longer exists?
> > >
> > > Loss of ability is not loss of free will.
> >
> > Ability and capacity are not the same thing.
>
> They are in your context.

You offered the claim of lack of capacity, therefore the context is
yours.

>
> > > > > > > > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > > > > > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > > > > > > > think that's the only reason.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > > > > > > > of others.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Probably a safe choice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Safety resides only with the LORD.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you say so.
> > > > >
> > > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > > >
> > > > As it is mine despite your contrary proclamations.
> > >
> > > If this had been your choice, there would have been no need for you to
> > > apologize earlier for bearing false witness.
> >
> > There was no apology tendered for bearing false witness, despite
> > your words indicating otherwise.
>
> See above.

Answered above.

>
> > If I had not asked you to verify the
> > information and identify what was false and what was not, then false
> > witness may eventually have been committed.
>
> You asked for verification **after** being called on the false witness.

Actually, the archives do not support your untrue words. Would
suggest you review the post in question, at http://tinyurl.com/abyap

*****

(from the post in question)

(Ernst): I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally,
bad things tend to accompany your interactions with people.

***

This, of course, was the self-evident truth that I continue to
witness in you, Dr. Chung. Regardless of the nature of your transaction
with Bellsouth.

>
>
> This would be analogous to a murderer asking about the law against
> murder in order to use his/her question as evidence of ignorance and
> ignorance as defense for the crime.

In truth, your analogy is faulty, as the "crime" in my case was
forstalled by requesting verification prior to propogation or witness
of any false testimony.

In your zeal to make your untrue case of false witness (and thereby
committing the same misdeed you allege to describe in others), you
remind me of a corrupt local law enforcement official gleefully
enforcing illegal speed traps.

>
> > > > > > > > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > > > > > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > In your opinion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Not just mine.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Only the LORD's judgment matters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
> > > > > > **ultimately** matters.
> > > > >
> > > > > The LORD continues to guide me in all that I say, do, or write.
> > > >
> > > > You should work harder on following his guidance more precisely.
> > >
> > > In your untruthful opinion, which is meaningless.
> >
> > ????
> >
> > You're saying you don't need to work harder?
>
> What has been written points to your ignorance.

In truth, your words speak emptily of ignorance in another while
highlighting your own.

<snip>

Ernst Primer wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > > > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
> > > > >
> > > > > **My apologies**

**emphasis added**

> > > >
> > > > Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.
> > >
> > > No false witness was borne
> >
> > That is not what I have discerned.
>
> It is your choice to proclaim an untruth as a truth.

No proclamation has been issued.

> > > nor was any forgiveness asked for such
> > > an act.
> >
> > It would be your choice to withdraw your request to be forgiven.
>
> That may be true, but no request to be forgiven was withdrawn,
> despite your proclamations of discerning otherwise.

Apologies are requests to be forgiven.

See **emphasis** above.

> >
> > > My apology was for believing something said by another that was
> > > not true, based on your correction of the record.
> >
> > Propagating the false witness of another is the same as bearing false
> > witness.
>
> Requesting verification of ostensibly truthful testimony from the
> subject of said testimony is not the same as bearing false witness.

Ignorance of the truth is not justification for being a false witness.

> > > If you wish to
> > > forgive that error, or to forgive me for a sin that was neither
> > > committed nor apologized for, that is your choice.
> >
> > It is my choice to forgive your trespass.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > I did not run an IP trace.
> >
> > It would be your choice to use this deficiency to justify your false
> > witness.
>
> It would be your choice to focus on this deficiency to mistakenly
> bolster your false claim of false witness.

This deficiency reveals your ignorance.

> > > > Yours is an illustration of the wisdom in the LORD's suggestion to
> > > > leave judging to the omniscient (Matthew 7).
> > > >
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > apologize if I got my facts wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It would be my choice to forgive you.
> > > > >
> > > > > Such is the nature of apologies.
> > > >
> > > > Your trespass (bearing false witness) has been forgiven by me.
> > >
> > > No trespass was asked forgiveness for, as none was committed. Above,
> > > I say "I apologize if I got my facts wrong."
> >
> > Getting your facts wrong about someone is bearing false witness
> > concerning that person.
>
> Asking for verification of incorrect facts from the subject of said
> incorrect facts is not bearing false witness. Instead, stating the
> facts without attempting to verify said facts in any manner would be
> bearing false witness. Also, accusing others of misdeeds they have
> clearly not committed would be bearing false witness (looks at Dr.
> Chung).

Your own words have betrayed you.

> > > I did not ask forgiveness
> > > for repeating untruths about you as if they were true.
> >
> > Repeating untruths about someone as if they were truths is bearing
> > false withness concerning that person.
>
> Requesting verification of assertions stated by another as truth is
> not the same as bearing false witness. Those who describe the behavior
> of such a person as "bearing false witness" ironically bear false
> witness themselves.

Again, your own words betray you.

> > > > > > > > An agent of BellSouth had verbally requested that I remove the
> > > > > > > > Christian content in my signature. My response was that I might
> > > > > > > > consider it if he put his request in writing but he refused. Requests
> > > > > > > > to meet with the BellSouth CEO, Duane Ackerman, about this matter were
> > > > > > > > rejected. A complaint with the Better Business Bureau has been
> > > > > > > > ignored. Mediation is pending and if that fails, this matter will go
> > > > > > > > to court:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > http://tinyurl.com/bgfqt
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > which I assert
> > > > > > > > > > > can be regarded in many cases as an indication of this problem's
> > > > > > > > > > > existence.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > The untruthful are bothered by the truth.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > But just because someone is bothered doesn't necessarily logically
> > > > > > > > > follow that a) truth is being spoken or that b) those that are bothered
> > > > > > > > > by what is being spoken are untruthful. The other theory that would fit
> > > > > > > > > the data is that you're frequently unable to engage in discourse with
> > > > > > > > > people without violating basic written and unwritten rules of social
> > > > > > > > > behavior.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > In truth, a signature is not part of any written discourse.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > In truth, your concept of discourse and communication is limited.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Concepts are by definition limited.
> > > > >
> > > > > I meant to say, overly limited.
> > > >
> > > > Then you meant to offer a meaningless opinion.
> > >
> > > In your opinion. Again, your concept of discourse and communication
> > > is overly limited.
> >
> > The truth remains that a signature is not part of any written discourse
> > despite their both being part of a written communication.
>
> The self-evident truth is that your signature is part of **this**
> written discourse, at this very moment, which puts lie to your
> statement, above. :-)

Though someone's signature may be the subject of a discussion, a
signature is not part of any written discourse.

> >
> > > > > > > > > > > The problem of course being your manner of relating with
> > > > > > > > > > > others.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It will forever remain my choice to stick with the truth. Sorry if
> > > > > > > > > > that bothers you or others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Don't be defensive, I'm not bothered about the content of your
> > > > > > > > > beliefs, actually.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The truth is independent of my beliefs.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > By definition.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > and the very nature of the truth which is infinitely larger than any
> > > > > > language constructed to describe it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Exactly. Language is imperfect, as are those who wield it.
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I've been (mildly) bothered by the process of how
> > > > > > > > > you interact with others, however.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your choice.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As always.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Such is the free will that GOD has given you, me, and others.
> > > > >
> > > > > Except when it comes to your capacity to choose disregard the truth
> > > > > - didn't you say that capacity no longer exists?
> > > >
> > > > Loss of ability is not loss of free will.
> > >
> > > Ability and capacity are not the same thing.
> >
> > They are in your context.
>
> You offered the claim of lack of capacity, therefore the context is
> yours.

In either context, ability and capacity are the same thing.

> > > > > > > > > > > I'll concede that sometimes it may have something to do with
> > > > > > > > > > > you being so outwardly Christian, but you're missing the boat if you
> > > > > > > > > > > think that's the only reason.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > It remains my choice to not guess at what the LORD sees in the hearts
> > > > > > > > > > of others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Probably a safe choice.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Safety resides only with the LORD.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you say so.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
> > > > >
> > > > > As it is mine despite your contrary proclamations.
> > > >
> > > > If this had been your choice, there would have been no need for you to
> > > > apologize earlier for bearing false witness.
> > >
> > > There was no apology tendered for bearing false witness, despite
> > > your words indicating otherwise.
> >
> > See above.
>
> Answered above.

Indeed.

> > > If I had not asked you to verify the
> > > information and identify what was false and what was not, then false
> > > witness may eventually have been committed.
> >
> > You asked for verification **after** being called on the false witness.
>
> Actually, the archives do not support your untrue words.

Actually it does.

> Would
> suggest you review the post in question, at http://tinyurl.com/abyap
>
> *****
>
> (from the post in question)
>
> (Ernst): I may have been speaking figuratively, but quite literally,
> bad things tend to accompany your interactions with people.

False witness.

> ***
>
> This, of course, was the self-evident truth that I continue to
> witness in you, Dr. Chung. Regardless of the nature of your transaction
> with Bellsouth.

You continue to bear false witness.

> >
> >
> > This would be analogous to a murderer asking about the law against
> > murder in order to use his/her question as evidence of ignorance and
> > ignorance as defense for the crime.
>
> In truth, your analogy is faulty, as the "crime" in my case was
> forstalled by requesting verification prior to propogation or witness
> of any false testimony.

Once your post was made and read by others, you bore false witness.

> In your zeal to make your untrue case of false witness (and thereby
> committing the same misdeed you allege to describe in others), you
> remind me of a corrupt local law enforcement official gleefully
> enforcing illegal speed traps.

More false witnessing.

> > > > > > > > > > > Christianity may have fixed you
> > > > > > > > > > > spiritually, but it hasn't fixed you dispositionally.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > In your opinion.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Not just mine.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Only the LORD's judgment matters.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > For most Christians, the LORD's judgement is the one that
> > > > > > > **ultimately** matters.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The LORD continues to guide me in all that I say, do, or write.
> > > > >
> > > > > You should work harder on following his guidance more precisely.
> > > >
> > > > In your untruthful opinion, which is meaningless.
> > >
> > > ????
> > >
> > > You're saying you don't need to work harder?
> >
> > What has been written points to your ignorance.
>
> In truth, your words speak emptily of ignorance in another while
> highlighting your own.

As if you were able to discern the truth.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here this Thursday:

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

wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > wrote:
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > <snip>
> > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > > > > > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > **My apologies**
> >
> > **emphasis added**
>
> Your emphases are meaningless.

Yes, emphasizing meaningless words is meaningless.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here this Thursday:

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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> wrote:
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > > > > > > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > **My apologies**
> > >
> > > **emphasis added**
> >
> > Your emphases are meaningless.
>
> Yes, emphasizing meaningless words is meaningless.

In truth, it is the emphasis itself that is meaningless.

<snip>

On 15 Nov 2005 18:02:46 -0800, Huffed and
Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:

>
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> wrote:
>> >
>> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > > Ernst Primer wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > > > > wrote:
>> > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>> > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > <snip>
>> > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
>> > > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
>> > > > > > > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
>> > > > > > > >
>> > > > > > > > **My apologies**
>> > >
>> > > **emphasis added**
>> >
>> > Your emphases are meaningless.
>>
>> Yes, emphasizing meaningless words is meaningless.
>
> In truth, it is the emphasis itself that is meaningless.
>
> <snip>


in truth it is chung that is meaningless and worthless

wrote:
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > <snip>
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So you were not found guilty of a term of service violation?
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No. If I were, you would not be seeing this post which is reaching the
> > > > > > > > > > Google servers through BellSouth wires.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > **My apologies**
> > > >
> > > > **emphasis added**
> > >
> > > Your emphases are meaningless.
> >
> > Yes, emphasizing meaningless words is meaningless.
>
> In truth, it is the emphasis itself that is meaningless.

You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here this Thursday:

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

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:

<snip>

>
> You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing.

<snip>

You ever heard the term, "coming from you, that's rich"?

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing.
>
> <snip>
>
> You ever heard the term, "coming from you, that's rich"?

That has been said by the kettle to the pot but is not applicable here
since the kettle here is blind and does not know what the color is in
either case.

The truth is invincible...

....and LORD Jesus Christ is the way, **the truth**, and the life...

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here tomorrow:

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

wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > Ernst Primer wrote:
> > > > > > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The LORD continues to guide me in everything I say, do, or write.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Not everything.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In everything.
> > > > >
> > > > > That would imply you've *never* had a moment (of "weakness" perhaps)
> > > > > where the God of your understanding has not guided you in everything
> > > > > you say, do, or write.
> > > >
> > > > The LORD does not have moments of weakness.
> > >
> > > But you do.
> >
> > The LORD's guidance comes from Him and not from self.
>
> That would logically follow, but does not address my point.

Your point has failed to defeat the truth.

> I'm happy
> to concede that the God of your understanding's guidance, if followed
> flawlessly, would lead to wonderful things.

It would be your choice to concede instead to what is not true.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here tomorrow:

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

On 16 Nov 2005 00:06:34 -0800, Huffed and
Puffed the following into the madness of usenet:

>
>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>
>> You remind me of the blind man who would feign vision among the seeing.
>
><snip>
>
>You ever heard the term, "coming from you, that's rich"?


please trim your headers and do not cross post chung post in any
diabetic groups chung is known usenet troll and kook off his
antisphycotic meds

wrote:
> Em wrote:
>
> <snip>
>
> > "Discernment is God's call to intercession, never to faultfinding."
> > Corrie ten Boom
>
> Well said.

.... and evidence for the existence of truth discernment which Don
Kirkman struggles so valiantly to deny.

Would be more than happy to "glow" and chat about this and other things
like cardiology, diabetes and nutrition that interest those following
this thread here during the next on-line chat (12/08/05):

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