"Bob (this one)" wrote:
>
> Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
> > Ha SATAN [Sin Tet Nun] wrote:
> >
> >>Bob (this one) wrote:
> >>
> >>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>Don Kirkman wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>Don Kirkman wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>Do you believe that
> >>>>>>>the Chinese (Hanzi) for rice is "phan" in Cantonese, Mandarin, Hakka,
> >>>>>>>and all the other dialects?
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>No. Though the written character may be the same, the way it is spoken
> >>>>>>will likely be different depending on the dialect.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>QED
> >>>>
> >>>>Thankfully, the meaning follows the written character and not the
> >>>>dialect-specific phonetics of the written character.
> >>>
> >>><LOL> But you said that the word for rice is specifically phan and
> >>>definitely not mei. And it's not true. So you just tried your typical
> >>>non sequitur to evade admitting error. As usual.
> >>>
> >>>Clownish, fraudulent Chung.
> >>>
> >>>Pastorio
> >>
> >>Chung might be a clown but you are incorrect
> >>the chinese word for rice can indeed be expressed in the romanization
> >>`mei` it simply depends which dialect one is speaking.
> >>the vulgar northern variety uses a falling rising intonation with the
> >>approximate roman equivalent of `mi`
> >>your assertion of `phan` is the equivalent of "meal"
> >>it may mean rice but is a broader classification in both northern and
> >>southern dialects
> >>
> >>there again making assumptions about languages which do not use roman
> >>script puts one at risk of being ridiculous
> >
> > just a minute Pastorio i apologize
> > i looked at that again and see that it is Chung who is saying this.
>
> Thank you.

And so the cook thanks his master.

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 today (12/08/05) from 6 to
7 pm EST:

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
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk

On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:37:58 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> wrote:


>
>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
>http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk


No one is put off by your signature, moron, they are put off by YOU.
Get it?


jim

ensenadajim wrote:
>
> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:37:58 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >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
> >http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
>
> No one is put off by your signature, moron, they are put off by YOU.
> Get it?

Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.

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 (12/15/05) from 6 to 7 pm
EST:

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
http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk

On Fri, 09 Dec 2005 04:37:58 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
> wrote:

>ensenadajim wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 08 Dec 2005 07:37:58 -0500, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >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
>> >http://tinyurl.com/b6xwk
>>
>> No one is put off by your signature, moron, they are put off by YOU.
>> Get it?
>
>Ouch. You may have at the other cheek.
>
>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 (12/15/05) from 6 to 7 pm
>EST:

And what part of people here not wanting to have anything to do with
you then why would they wnat to have anything to do with you in chat
escapes you?


jim