Re: Atenelol and weight loss

Because of its promotion of lipid peroxidation, low-carbing is unwise
especially for folks who already have documented occlusive coronary
atherosclerotic heart disease.

Simply a word to the wise.

May GOD continue to heal your heart, dear neighbor Guy whom I love
unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?


Guy Scharf wrote:
> Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote:
>
> >> After seeing what the Zetia does, I plan to try Bio-Lipotrol.
> >> This contains Vit B3, Inositol, Guggle Gum extract, Red Yeast
> >> Rice extract and Policosanol. My wife's naturopath says he has
> >> seen significant cholesterol reduction using this supplement.
> >> What supplement do you find useful for reducing cholesterol
> >> counts?
> >
> > Guy, the only drug I would recommend (even though it wasn't kind
> > to me) for a type 2 with your issues is metformin, at least 1500
> > per day, along with a low carb (throw out all the starches) diet
> > and exercise to the extent possible. Pantethine added to that
> > should be a knockout punch. You sound very focused on drugs,
> > whether natural or pharma, rather than building your own health.
> > Preventive methods are always better than treatments.
>
> Susan,
>
> On a daily basis, my primary focus is on diet, weight loss and exercise
> and I will be continuing that (I just don't have questions about that
> right now :-)). I'm already on a low carb diet. I'm hoping that after
> I get my weight to a more optimal value that I'll be able to reduce the
> medications.
>
> The primary medication I rely on for DM is metformin, which I seem to
> tolerate well, at 1700 per day. Without it, my BG is more difficult to
> control, as my recent experiment confirmed.
>
> Because of my history of CVD and DM, my doctors want me my LDL below 70
> (the new standard for these diseases). I'm not there yet with diet and
> exercise, though I have gotten all cholesterol counts into the normal
> range. I've tried the statins they wanted me to try and rejected them
> because of their side effects (although Crestor worked very well for a
> year with excellent results in lipid measurements). I'm willing to try
> other supplements if that improves the lipids at least on an interim
> basis. I'm actually cautious about the red yeast rice, since that
> itself is what one of the statin drugs was derived from.
>
> For whatever reason, my doctor says that I seem to have more side
> effects than would normally be expected for someone keeping BG under as
> good control as I have. Thus the desire to bring all risk factors to
> the lowest possible level, even if it takes medications to do that.
>
> Guy

Hollywood wrote:
> Dr. Chung,
>
> You call me a zealot against your diet, sir.

The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Your strong delusion keeps your
mind from acknowledging this irrefutable fact.

May GOD continue to mercifully keep your heart beating, dear neighbor
whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?

> Let us examine the facts,
> as one can see in the post I am responding to. You, sir, have
> cross-posted your junk advice to multiple groups that were not carrying
> the conversation thread you were interloping in. You, sir, have
> repeated your objections to the LC approach in a forum designed for the
> support of that approach. Your hatred of the diet is clear in your
> every comment on the diet. Your continuing hard core marketing approach
> (regardless of whether you charge for it or not, it is basically a
> sales pitch, sir) only makes clear your objectives in your frequent
> charges against LC.
>
> Before you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself, Sir.
>
> -Hollywood, who reminds you that Mr. Hollywood is his father, four year
> LC adherent with lowered cholesterol, blood sugar and weight.
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> <snipped zealous snipe at LC approaches to dieting, and extensive
> bottom quote of question for advice and advice given>

First, sir, Mr. Hollywood is my father. He has been doing LC for over 4
years and is in the finest health of his life. I would ask you to
leave him out of your conversation, Sir. He is not here to answer your
mythically based nonsense.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Dr. Chung,
> >
> > You call me a zealot against your diet, sir.
>
> The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Your strong delusion keeps your
> mind from acknowledging this irrefutable fact.

I have provided definitions of the word Diet from several dictionaries.
For example:
http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/D0213600.html
provided in this post:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...804c77be69d7df

Under one definition or the other, the s2PD-OMER diet clearly fits the
bill. You reduce your intake of food with the goal of improving health
or losing weight. That's all there is to it. I know you feel some
bizzarre fixation about diets not working, and so feel that being a
diet is a smear. But here, in the reality based world, there is no
shame in being a diet and your "approach" is nothing but a diet. Anyone
with a modicum of common sense, a dictionary, and the description of
the diet found on your site (the two page PDF file entitled, "Simple
Step-by-Step Instructions for Permanent Weight Loss: The 2PD-OMER
Approach (Published in 1998) (Not-On-Diabetic-Medications Version)"...
if you are not familiar with your own writing, and need to review what
you said, it can be found here: http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.asp)

*You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*

If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
of a diet, sir.

If you respond to any portion of this message, please respond to the
above paragraph.

-Hollywood, begging you to join the reality based community)

<Chung's annoying, repetitive prayers, the very kind that Jesus
inveghed against in Matthew 6:1-8 deleted>

> > Let us examine the facts,
> > as one can see in the post I am responding to. You, sir, have
> > cross-posted your junk advice to multiple groups that were not carrying
> > the conversation thread you were interloping in. You, sir, have
> > repeated your objections to the LC approach in a forum designed for the
> > support of that approach. Your hatred of the diet is clear in your
> > every comment on the diet. Your continuing hard core marketing approach
> > (regardless of whether you charge for it or not, it is basically a
> > sales pitch, sir) only makes clear your objectives in your frequent
> > charges against LC.
> >
> > Before you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself, Sir.
> >
> > -Hollywood, who reminds you that Mr. Hollywood is his father, four year
> > LC adherent with lowered cholesterol, blood sugar and weight.
> >
> > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > <snipped zealous snipe at LC approaches to dieting, and extensive
> > bottom quote of question for advice and advice given>

It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
Approach is a diet.

Such delusions support the psychiatric diagnosis of
obsessive-compulsive disorder with psychotic features.

Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your symptoms.

May GOD continue in HIS infinite grace and mercy to keep your heart
beating to give you time to seek and receive help, dear neighbor
Hollywood whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?



Hollywood wrote:
> First, sir, Mr. Hollywood is my father. He has been doing LC for over 4
> years and is in the finest health of his life. I would ask you to
> leave him out of your conversation, Sir. He is not here to answer your
> mythically based nonsense.
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Hollywood wrote:
> > > Dr. Chung,
> > >
> > > You call me a zealot against your diet, sir.
> >
> > The 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet. Your strong delusion keeps your
> > mind from acknowledging this irrefutable fact.
>
> I have provided definitions of the word Diet from several dictionaries.
> For example:
> http://www.bartleby.com/61/36/D0213600.html
> provided in this post:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.s...804c77be69d7df
>
> Under one definition or the other, the s2PD-OMER diet clearly fits the
> bill. You reduce your intake of food with the goal of improving health
> or losing weight. That's all there is to it. I know you feel some
> bizzarre fixation about diets not working, and so feel that being a
> diet is a smear. But here, in the reality based world, there is no
> shame in being a diet and your "approach" is nothing but a diet. Anyone
> with a modicum of common sense, a dictionary, and the description of
> the diet found on your site (the two page PDF file entitled, "Simple
> Step-by-Step Instructions for Permanent Weight Loss: The 2PD-OMER
> Approach (Published in 1998) (Not-On-Diabetic-Medications Version)"...
> if you are not familiar with your own writing, and need to review what
> you said, it can be found here: http://www.heartmdphd.com/losewtnd.asp)
>
> *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*
>
> If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> of a diet, sir.
>
> If you respond to any portion of this message, please respond to the
> above paragraph.
>
> -Hollywood, begging you to join the reality based community)
>
> <Chung's annoying, repetitive prayers, the very kind that Jesus
> inveghed against in Matthew 6:1-8 deleted>
>
> > > Let us examine the facts,
> > > as one can see in the post I am responding to. You, sir, have
> > > cross-posted your junk advice to multiple groups that were not carrying
> > > the conversation thread you were interloping in. You, sir, have
> > > repeated your objections to the LC approach in a forum designed for the
> > > support of that approach. Your hatred of the diet is clear in your
> > > every comment on the diet. Your continuing hard core marketing approach
> > > (regardless of whether you charge for it or not, it is basically a
> > > sales pitch, sir) only makes clear your objectives in your frequent
> > > charges against LC.
> > >
> > > Before you 'cuse me, take a look at yourself, Sir.
> > >
> > > -Hollywood, who reminds you that Mr. Hollywood is his father, four year
> > > LC adherent with lowered cholesterol, blood sugar and weight.
> > >
> > > Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > > <snipped zealous snipe at LC approaches to dieting, and extensive
> > > bottom quote of question for advice and advice given>

Art Deco wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
>
> >It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
> >Approach is a diet.
>
> You're an idiot, Mr. Fraud.

Name-calling simply shows that you are lost:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...2672896d36d4b?

> A diet consists of something you stuff into your mouth.

Correct. The 2PD-OMER Approach does not specify what people place in
their mouths...

.... **only** how much:

http://HeartMDPhD.com/wtloss.asp

May GOD continue in HIS infinite mercy and grace to keep your heart
beating to give you time to understand this, dear neighbor Art whom I
love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?


> >
> >Such delusions support the psychiatric diagnosis of
> >obsessive-compulsive disorder with psychotic features.
> >
> >Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your symptoms.
>
> Irony Alert! Hypocrisy Alert! Shields Up!
>
> [support ngs snecked]
>
> --
> COOSN-266-06-39716
> Official Associate AFA-B Vote Rustler
> Official Overseer of Kooks and Saucerheads in alt.astronomy
> Official "Usenet psychopath and born-again LLPOF minion",
> as designated by Brad Guth
>
> "Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
> attribution problems?"
> -- Dr. David Tholen

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
> Approach is a diet.

Perhaps you do not understand the function of language. It serves to
allow people with individual minds and ideas to share them. You clearly
do not share English with the rest of the English speaking world if you
believe that your s2PD OMER approach is a diet.

> Such delusions support the psychiatric diagnosis of
> obsessive-compulsive disorder with psychotic features.

The psychosis is clearly proved in you. You have been presented with
clear evidence that your diet is in fact a diet. You refuse to accept
that it is so nor do you refute said evidence. Clearly, one of us is
not in touch with reality. It's the one who believe that a diet is not
a diet, that Jesus motivates him to attack the LC diet approach, the
one who accepts parts of the Bible while ignoring other parts
(specifically Matthew 6:1-8). Yeah, three of your five fingers are
pointing right back at you Dr. Chung.

> Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your symptoms.

My symptoms are that I cannot allow a clearly psychotic doctor to push
his views unchallenged in good conscience. If good men do not stand up
to the tyranny of morons and charlatans, the world will be very far
from good indeed. That is my chief symptom.

<vain repetitive, self serving prayer deleted in the best interests of
Dr. Chung's soul>


Since you failed to answer this the first time, I will give you another
chance.
I wrote, in this very thread:
> *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*

> If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> of a diet, sir.

Again, the gauntlet is thrown. Show the hole in the logic. And don't
bottom quote this. The truth should be simple. Prove it to be. Answer
the question or admit you are a diet author.

-Hollywood, sadly tilting at the insane windmills of Dr. Chung

Hollywood wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> > It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
> > Approach is a diet.
>
> Perhaps you do not understand the function of language.

Actually I do.

> It serves to
> allow people with individual minds and ideas to share them. You clearly
> do not share English with the rest of the English speaking world if you
> believe that your s2PD OMER approach is a diet.

Actually, most assuredly, without doubt, I know the 2PD-OMER Approach
is not a diet.

This authority has been given to me by GOD when HE made me the inventor
of the 2PD-OMER Approach.

By what authority would you use to assert that the 2PD-OMER Approach is
a diet ?

No need to answer this rhetorical question whose answer can only be
that you have no authority.

Zero.

Nada.

Zilch.

Null.

Nothing.

This victorious use of language belongs to GOD, Who is the source of
all knowledge and wisdom.

Indeed, this victory is HIS. Laus Deo ! !

Your consolation prize if you choose to accept it is HIS salvation in
the form of eternal life:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...058da12bb3f3d?

May GOD in HIS infinite grace and mercy continue to keep your heart
beating to give you time to understand this, dear neighbor Hollywood
whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?



> > Such delusions support the psychiatric diagnosis of
> > obsessive-compulsive disorder with psychotic features.
>
> The psychosis is clearly proved in you. You have been presented with
> clear evidence that your diet is in fact a diet. You refuse to accept
> that it is so nor do you refute said evidence. Clearly, one of us is
> not in touch with reality. It's the one who believe that a diet is not
> a diet, that Jesus motivates him to attack the LC diet approach, the
> one who accepts parts of the Bible while ignoring other parts
> (specifically Matthew 6:1-8). Yeah, three of your five fingers are
> pointing right back at you Dr. Chung.
>
> > Would suggest you inform your doctor(s) about your symptoms.
>
> My symptoms are that I cannot allow a clearly psychotic doctor to push
> his views unchallenged in good conscience. If good men do not stand up
> to the tyranny of morons and charlatans, the world will be very far
> from good indeed. That is my chief symptom.
>
> <vain repetitive, self serving prayer deleted in the best interests of
> Dr. Chung's soul>
>
>
> Since you failed to answer this the first time, I will give you another
> chance.
> I wrote, in this very thread:
> > *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> > of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> > improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> > your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> > and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*
>
> > If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> > untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> > before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> > anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> > untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> > a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> > equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> > of a diet, sir.
>
> Again, the gauntlet is thrown. Show the hole in the logic. And don't
> bottom quote this. The truth should be simple. Prove it to be. Answer
> the question or admit you are a diet author.
>
> -Hollywood, sadly tilting at the insane windmills of Dr. Chung

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Andrew wrote:
> > > It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
> > > Approach is a diet.
> >
> > Perhaps you do not understand the function of language.
>
> Actually I do.

Please demonstrate a better understanding then.

> > It serves to
> > allow people with individual minds and ideas to share them. You clearly
> > do not share English with the rest of the English speaking world if you
> > believe that your s2PD OMER approach is a diet.
>
> Actually, most assuredly, without doubt, I know the 2PD-OMER Approach
> is not a diet.

The spirit in the sky told you?

> This authority has been given to me by GOD when HE made me the inventor
> of the 2PD-OMER Approach.

I guess so.

> By what authority would you use to assert that the 2PD-OMER Approach is
> a diet ?

So, as a 33 year native speaker of the English language, an occasional
paid writer, the child of paid writers and editors, the owner of a 3.8
GPA in all writing/english courses I took, and a perfect 6 on the
GMAT-CAT analytical writing assessment, I think I can be considered a
minor authority on the English language. Not William Saffire, Noam
Chomsky, or Anthony Burgess, but close enough to be able to use a
dictionary. While it's not divine authority, I think my allegedly God
Given intellect combined with my upbringing and experiences make me
more than qualified to interpret your writings with the aid of a
dictionary.

> No need to answer this rhetorical question whose answer can only be
> that you have no authority.

I'll take the wise old scholars of the Washington University in St.
Louis, the University of Texas, the people who deigned and assesss the
GMAT writing assessment, my editors, the people who have hired me to do
writing work, and my parents word as authority over your likely
mythical Spirit in the Sky every day, including Sunday.

> Zero.

That'd be my assessment of your ability to read a dictionary definition
and apply it to the world. The base function of language.

> Nada.

An assessment of your ability to interpret events in the real world
without some starvation induced hallucination of a member of the Holy
Triinity.

> Zilch.

The odds that anyone with an objective mind and no starvation induced
religious mania would
be able to accept a word you say from this moment on as containing the
least bit of credibility.

> Null.

Like your license to practice in Florida?

> Nothing.

The data that you bring to discuss anything. In fact, the proof you
have brought for anything you have ever said.

> This victorious use of language belongs to GOD, Who is the source of
> all knowledge and wisdom.

Perhaps you have lost the meaning in translation from the language of
Heaven to whatever dialect of Chinese or English your mind works in.

> Indeed, this victory is HIS. Laus Deo ! !

He can fight his own battles without your semi-incompetant help. If
indeed he exists.

> Your consolation prize if you choose to accept it is HIS salvation in
> the form of eternal life:

So, lemme get this straight. If I accept his salvation (whatever that
means), I can live forever? Except that I have to die first? In the
words of the Late Freddy Mercury, "Who wants to live forever? Who needs
to live forever? Who dares to live forever?"

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...058da12bb3f3d?

I used to click through these links, just to make sure I wasn't missing
some relevant nugget of wisdom. Then I realized you are just quoting
yourself talking the same nonsense to some other victim. I can't be
bothered to care. If Jesus himself were posting on that other link, I
don't think I could be bothered.

<vain, repetitious, self serving prayer, in clear opposition to Matthe
6:1-8 deleted in the best interests of Chung's eternal life>

You negelected to answer the quoted passage below. I'm gonna keep
posting it until you answer it. I might have to branch into other
media. The choices are three: 1- My logic is wrong... there is a
demonstrable hole in it that you can point to, 2- You (and the Spirit
in the Sky) are actually diet authors or 3- "I refuse to answer that
because it would make me look like I have been whipped very thoroughly
by you." Any subsequent refusal to either invalidate my logic (the
below paragraphs) or confess to operating a diet can ONLY be
interpretted as your failure to win this discussion (and subsequently
the LORD losing as well... I wouldn't tie my fortunes to His quite so
tightly. He might not like being made foolish through his moronic,
illogical proxy diet-author-cum-cardiologist). Those are the
possibilities. Please help us to fully understand your position.
Actually address the content of the argument.

> > > *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> > > of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> > > improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> > > your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> > > and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*
> >
> > > If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> > > untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> > > before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> > > anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> > > untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> > > a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> > > equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> > > of a diet, sir.

Can I pray that you get your eternal reward sooner rather than later?
Or, is it more like Matthew's report on what Jesus said in 6:1-8, that
you already have it?

-Hollywood, asking for an answer that will never come. Winning a battle
against an incapable foe.

Hollywood wrote:
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Hollywood wrote:
> > > Andrew wrote:
> > > > It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
> > > > Approach is a diet.
> > >
> > > Perhaps you do not understand the function of language.
> >
> > Actually I do.
>
> Please demonstrate a better understanding then.

You remind me of the blind man who would blame the seeing for his lack
of vision.

> > > It serves to
> > > allow people with individual minds and ideas to share them. You clearly
> > > do not share English with the rest of the English speaking world if you
> > > believe that your s2PD OMER approach is a diet.
> >
> > Actually, most assuredly, without doubt, I know the 2PD-OMER Approach
> > is not a diet.
>
> The spirit in the sky told you?

No. It is LORD GOD Almighty, Who is the Source of all knowledge and
wisdom.

> > This authority has been given to me by GOD when HE made me the inventor
> > of the 2PD-OMER Approach.
>
> I guess so.

Irrefutably.

> > By what authority would you use to assert that the 2PD-OMER Approach is
> > a diet ?
>
> So, as a 33 year native speaker of the English language,

GOD is victorious here by making me a 41 yr native speaker of the
English language.

Laus Deo !

> an occasional paid writer

GOD is victorious here by having made me editor of numerous
publications along with serving as both paid and invited writer for
other publications.

Laus Deo !

>, the child of paid writers and editors, the owner of a 3.8
> GPA in all writing/english courses I took

GOD is victorious here by having made me the owner of a 4.0 GPA of all
writing/English courses ever taken.

Laus Deo !

> , and a perfect 6 on the
> GMAT-CAT analytical writing assessment, I think I can be considered a
> minor authority on the English language.

GOD is victorious here by having made me the owner of perfect verbal
scores on SAT, MCAT, and GRE.

Laus Deo !

> Not William Saffire, Noam
> Chomsky, or Anthony Burgess, but close enough to be able to use a
> dictionary. While it's not divine authority, I think my allegedly God
> Given intellect combined with my upbringing and experiences make me
> more than qualified to interpret your writings with the aid of a
> dictionary.

In the Holy Spirit, I have the divine authority of GOD to write that
the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.

> > No need to answer this rhetorical question whose answer can only be
> > that you have no authority.
>
> I'll take the wise old scholars of the Washington University in St.
> Louis, the University of Texas, the people who deigned and assesss the
> GMAT writing assessment, my editors, the people who have hired me to do
> writing work, and my parents word as authority over your likely
> mythical Spirit in the Sky every day, including Sunday.

Without the LORD, you will be forever without either wisdom or
authority (Ecclesiastes).

> > Zero.
>
> That'd be my assessment of your ability to read a dictionary definition
> and apply it to the world. The base function of language.

Without the LORD, your assessments are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).

> > Nada.
>
> An assessment of your ability to interpret events in the real world
> without some starvation induced hallucination of a member of the Holy
> Triinity.

Ditto above.

> > Zilch.
>
> The odds that anyone with an objective mind and no starvation induced
> religious mania would
> be able to accept a word you say from this moment on as containing the
> least bit of credibility.

Without the LORD, your fantasies are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).

> > Null.
>
> Like your license to practice in Florida?

Like your authority on this subject.

> > Nothing.
>
> The data that you bring to discuss anything. In fact, the proof you
> have brought for anything you have ever said.

Without the LORD, your beliefs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).

> > This victorious use of language belongs to GOD, Who is the source of
> > all knowledge and wisdom.
>
> Perhaps you have lost the meaning in translation from the language of
> Heaven to whatever dialect of Chinese or English your mind works in.

English has no dialect. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to
GOD for compelling you to show that your understanding of the English
language is indeed faulty. Laus Deo !

> > Indeed, this victory is HIS. Laus Deo ! !
>
> He can fight his own battles without your semi-incompetant help.

The Holy Spirit is GOD !

Laus Deo ! !

> If indeed he exists.

You have no other explanation for your being utterly and irrevocably
defeated.

> > Your consolation prize if you choose to accept it is HIS salvation in
> > the form of eternal life:
>
> So, lemme get this straight. If I accept his salvation (whatever that
> means), I can live forever?

If you choose to place you faith in LORD Jesus Christ, accepting GOD's
love into your heart, you will receive eternal life as you are reborn
of HIS living water and the Holy Spirit.

> Except that I have to die first?

No. Those who are reborn of living water and the Holy Spirit will
never taste death.

> In the
> words of the Late Freddy Mercury, "Who wants to live forever? Who needs
> to live forever? Who dares to live forever?"

Those who love GOD with all their hearts, soul, minds, and strength,
want to spend the rest of eternity with HIM:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...b5dc947a0781f?

May GOD in HIS infinite mercy and grace continue to keep your heart
beating to give you time to understand this, dear neighbor Hollywood
whom I love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...058da12bb3f3d?
>
> I used to click through these links, just to make sure I wasn't missing
> some relevant nugget of wisdom. Then I realized you are just quoting
> yourself talking the same nonsense to some other victim. I can't be
> bothered to care. If Jesus himself were posting on that other link, I
> don't think I could be bothered.
>
> <vain, repetitious, self serving prayer, in clear opposition to Matthe
> 6:1-8 deleted in the best interests of Chung's eternal life>
>
> You negelected to answer the quoted passage below. I'm gonna keep
> posting it until you answer it. I might have to branch into other
> media. The choices are three: 1- My logic is wrong... there is a
> demonstrable hole in it that you can point to, 2- You (and the Spirit
> in the Sky) are actually diet authors or 3- "I refuse to answer that
> because it would make me look like I have been whipped very thoroughly
> by you." Any subsequent refusal to either invalidate my logic (the
> below paragraphs) or confess to operating a diet can ONLY be
> interpretted as your failure to win this discussion (and subsequently
> the LORD losing as well... I wouldn't tie my fortunes to His quite so
> tightly. He might not like being made foolish through his moronic,
> illogical proxy diet-author-cum-cardiologist). Those are the
> possibilities. Please help us to fully understand your position.
> Actually address the content of the argument.
>
> > > > *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> > > > of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> > > > improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> > > > your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> > > > and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*
> > >
> > > > If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> > > > untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> > > > before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> > > > anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> > > > untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> > > > a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> > > > equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> > > > of a diet, sir.
>
> Can I pray that you get your eternal reward sooner rather than later?
> Or, is it more like Matthew's report on what Jesus said in 6:1-8, that
> you already have it?

May the following post help you understand:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...e1d0af5b9ffd9?

Dr. Chung,

You fail to answer the primary question before you. You can cite God as
your witness all you like but it does not change the facts that you
refuse to prove me wrong. Unless God is gonna hook up his big t-3
connection in the sky and post to your defense, you will either answer
the question or be judged beaten on all counts, by right of forfeit.
Again, for everyone at home. This is the fourth time I am putting this
to you. Bottom post it at your peril (by your peril, I mean the peril
of your already tarnished reputation, your already shoddy good name and
your everlasting embarassment in the eyes of your less than adoring
fans including the Big Spirit In the Sky you call LORD).

Once, again, with feeling (pointers left in to show your repeated lack
of response):

> > > > > *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> > > > > of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> > > > > improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> > > > > your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> > > > > and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*
> > > >
> > > > > If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> > > > > untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> > > > > before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> > > > > anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> > > > > untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> > > > > a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> > > > > equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> > > > > of a diet, sir.

If you cannot answer this, your diet is a diet. If you can break the
logic, please do so. If you repeat your junk about the LORD knowing
that you have the Truth, you will be judged mentally incompetant. I
might try and petition the court to have you made a ward of the state
on the grounds that you are clearly not mentally fit to treat patients
or continue to function without the state's assistance.

Now, on to your nonsense. Chung, you blathered:
> Hollywood wrote:
> > Please demonstrate a better understanding then.
>
> You remind me of the blind man who would blame the seeing for his lack
> of vision.

You remind me of a mentally ill person I met once. He claimed that dogs
were cats and geese were doctors.

> > The spirit in the sky told you?
>
> No. It is LORD GOD Almighty, Who is the Source of all knowledge and
> wisdom.

There's a difference?

> > > This authority has been given to me by GOD when HE made me the inventor
> > > of the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> >
> > I guess so.
>
> Irrefutably.

So, you hear voices? Or he just takes control of your body? Either one
would be a good reason to talk to a qualified therapist. Perhaps, with
the right mix of drugs, sedatives, and proper nutrition (which you are
clearly not getting or your brain would work better) you can rejoin the
normal, reality based world.

> > So, as a 33 year native speaker of the English language,
>
> GOD is victorious here by making me a 41 yr native speaker of the
> English language.

Uhm, I have spent 100% of my life and you have spent 100% of your life
speaking English. I dare say that your comprehension, particularly
around the word diet, and your ability to comprehend the operation of a
dictionary definition would seem to say that your 41 years as a native
English speaker have been wasted. Please use dictionary.com or
bartleby.com when you have trouble following. I am trying to keep it
simple for you. -PS this is the kind of ownership the title refers to.

<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

> > an occasional paid writer
>
> GOD is victorious here by having made me editor of numerous
> publications along with serving as both paid and invited writer for
> other publications.

I made my living by other means. I have this option available to me
whenever I wish to return. My publication credits include national
magazines with large readerships, including publications from the
Time/Life magazine group and the Conde Nast group. Additionally, I have
operated many web logs that have all been noted for quality of content
and style. And oh yeah, my fiction work has been printed in several
journals including the prestigious Amrican Short Story Magazine. You
are beaten.

<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

> >, the child of paid writers and editors, the owner of a 3.8
> > GPA in all writing/english courses I took
>
> GOD is victorious here by having made me the owner of a 4.0 GPA of all
> writing/English courses ever taken.

I have taken nearly 60 credit hours of writing and literature at the
college level. I imagine with your EE degree, you took a ton of
writing/English. My undergraduate degree was in Writing for Film and
Television with a minor in literature. That takes a lot of credits. I
think I win, based on breadth and quality. Also, I went to better
schools than you. Emory is a nice school. Texas is a much better
writing school. Wash U a much better school altogether.

<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

> > , and a perfect 6 on the
> > GMAT-CAT analytical writing assessment, I think I can be considered a
> > minor authority on the English language.
>
> GOD is victorious here by having made me the owner of perfect verbal
> scores on SAT, MCAT, and GRE.

Yeah, I have a perfect PSAT verbal. A perfect 790 SAT verbal. An SAT
Achievement test English of 790 and a 36 ACT English. No GRE for
B-school. MCAT is to med school what GMAT is to B-school. I forgot, I
scored in the 99th percentile on the verbal portion of the MCAT too.
With my perfect writing assessment. We can measure dicks all day, but
based on our relative sizes and RNO information, I bet I win there too.


<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

> > Not William Saffire, Noam
> > Chomsky, or Anthony Burgess, but close enough to be able to use a
> > dictionary. While it's not divine authority, I think my allegedly God
> > Given intellect combined with my upbringing and experiences make me
> > more than qualified to interpret your writings with the aid of a
> > dictionary.
>
> In the Holy Spirit, I have the divine authority of GOD to write that
> the 2PD-OMER Approach is not a diet.

Do you have a plaque that gives you the Divine Authority of GOD? A
medal? A card? Something that shows you have it? If you cannot back it
up, it doesn't count. And posting a link to something you said last
month doesn't count as substaniation. Or transusbstantation either.

> > > No need to answer this rhetorical question whose answer can only be
> > > that you have no authority.
> >
> > I'll take the wise old scholars of the Washington University in St.
> > Louis, the University of Texas, the people who deigned and assesss the
> > GMAT writing assessment, my editors, the people who have hired me to do
> > writing work, and my parents word as authority over your likely
> > mythical Spirit in the Sky every day, including Sunday.
>
<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

> > > Zero.
> >
> > That'd be my assessment of your ability to read a dictionary definition
> > and apply it to the world. The base function of language.
>
<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>
>
> > > Nada.
> >
> > An assessment of your ability to interpret events in the real world
> > without some starvation induced hallucination of a member of the Holy
> > Triinity.
>
> Ditto above.
>
> > > Zilch.
> >
> > The odds that anyone with an objective mind and no starvation induced
> > religious mania would
> > be able to accept a word you say from this moment on as containing the
> > least bit of credibility.
>
<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>
>
> > > Null.
> >
> > Like your license to practice in Florida?
>
> Like your authority on this subject.

Which stems from being able to think, read, use a dictionary, and your
goofy website. Until you invalidate the statement at the top, show the
hole in the logic, you have no authority, not even any from GOD. He
deserts you on this, if in fact he exists, which I doubt, or if He
does, assuming he gives a rat's ass about you, which I seriously doubt,
even given the unlikeliness of his existence.

> > > Nothing.
> >
> > The data that you bring to discuss anything. In fact, the proof you
> > have brought for anything you have ever said.
>
<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>
>
> > > This victorious use of language belongs to GOD, Who is the source of
> > > all knowledge and wisdom.
> >
> > Perhaps you have lost the meaning in translation from the language of
> > Heaven to whatever dialect of Chinese or English your mind works in.
>
> English has no dialect. Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to
> GOD for compelling you to show that your understanding of the English
> language is indeed faulty.

I am sure that you note the regional differences when you travel from
say, your home in Georgia to perhaps my native home of New York City.
Perhaps next time you are in the Big Apple, you might tour about, get
familiar with the differences between the accent and dialect of say
Brooklyn, New Jersey, the Bronx and out further on Long Island.

Perhaps you have also never heard the English of a native of England
and compared or contrasted it to the English of a native Midwestern
American, or a South African, Australian, Canadian, Indian, Jamaican,
or Texan.

Moron. God fooled your sorry ass there.

<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

>
> > > Indeed, this victory is HIS. Laus Deo ! !
> >
> > He can fight his own battles without your semi-incompetant help.
>
> The Holy Spirit is GOD !

And if you are His Proxy in this argument, He is gonna have to step in
a post forhimself. You are doing a pitiful job.

<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>
>
> > If indeed he exists.
>
> You have no other explanation for your being utterly and irrevocably
> defeated.

I suspect that you could get into a fist fight, have all of your teeth
knocked out, two black eyes, a cauliflower ear, three broken ribs, a
dislocated knee cap, internal bleeding and a ruptured spleen and say
that you are victorius while your opponent continues to kick your
stomach in. Because that's pretty much what has happened here. You duck
answering my main concern, four replies in a row, and thereby get your
teeth kicked in. You refuse to defeat the logic, thereby having your
spleen ruptured. You refuse to admit you are incorrect, demonstrating
your cracked ribs. And you fail to just delete it and make the weak
claim that God has broken the logic, thereby throwing in the towel. Do
yourself a favor. Throw it in. You cannot do what it takes to win (you
aren't smart enough) or even lose gracefully (because only wise people
can admit when they are wrong). So, you should just walk away before
permanent damage sets in.

> > > Your consolation prize if you choose to accept it is HIS salvation in
> > > the form of eternal life:
> >
> > So, lemme get this straight. If I accept his salvation (whatever that
> > means), I can live forever?
>
> If you choose to place you faith in LORD Jesus Christ, accepting GOD's
> love into your heart, you will receive eternal life as you are *reborn
> of HIS living water and the Holy Spirit.*
<emphasis added>
That sounds kind of gross and vaguely dirty. And it still sounds like I
wind up dead as fried chicken. No thanks.

> > Except that I have to die first?
>
> No. Those who are reborn of living water and the Holy Spirit will
> never taste death.

Are you going to live forever? Are you the Highlander? This I MUST SEE
DOCUMENTED PROOF OF. I will even accept sketchy documentation of
someone in modern times who is over 150 years old and has not tasted
death throw the living water and holy ghosty.

> > In the
> > words of the Late Freddy Mercury, "Who wants to live forever? Who needs
> > to live forever? Who dares to live forever?"
>
> Those who love GOD with all their hearts, soul, minds, and strength,
> want to spend the rest of eternity with HIM:

So, I don't believe in him. If I did, I would have to ask about His
general mismanagement of his resources, his willing indifference in the
face of your perfidious nature, his management of the environment, the
need for Hurricane Katrina, etc. I think if he exists, he's kind of
mean spirited and capricious. I would not want to spend ten minutes
with that type of entity, much less eternity. Have a ball, though I
think you will be surprised by the afterlife, regardless of the
existence of your brand of supernatural fantasy.

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...b5dc947a0781f?

No one reads your links to your own lack of wisdom. Your dumb enough in
the present tense without having to revisit the past.

<repetitive, meaningless, vain prayer, clearly in opposition with Matt
6:1-8 deleted for the good of Dr. Chung's immortal soul>

> > You negelected to answer the quoted passage below. I'm gonna keep
> > posting it until you answer it. I might have to branch into other
> > media. The choices are three: 1- My logic is wrong... there is a
> > demonstrable hole in it that you can point to, 2- You (and the Spirit
> > in the Sky) are actually diet authors or 3- "I refuse to answer that
> > because it would make me look like I have been whipped very thoroughly
> > by you." Any subsequent refusal to either invalidate my logic (the
> > below paragraphs) or confess to operating a diet can ONLY be
> > interpretted as your failure to win this discussion (and subsequently
> > the LORD losing as well... I wouldn't tie my fortunes to His quite so
> > tightly. He might not like being made foolish through his moronic,
> > illogical proxy diet-author-cum-cardiologist). Those are the
> > possibilities. Please help us to fully understand your position.
> > Actually address the content of the argument.

You continue to fail to address the content of the argument. Build
another strawman. I will burn it down. Dodge it again. I will call you
on it. The hounds of Hell would not be more diligent in their pursuit
of a proper answer.

<snipped to top of message so it'll be harder to ignore>

> > Can I pray that you get your eternal reward sooner rather than later?
> > Or, is it more like Matthew's report on what Jesus said in 6:1-8, that
> > you already have it?
>
> May the following post help you understand:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...e1d0af5b9ffd9?

Fascinating. But since we are agreed that I have no chance of accepting
Jesus through you or your prayers. In fact, the more you push it, the
more I think Christianity is for the really mentally messed up, the
people who jkust screwed up their lives to the Nth degree and needed a
do over. I need that like I need a couple of bullets in my brain.

-Hollywood, your new Lord and Master. I am having the title drawn up as
we speak. And there will be changes under this management!

Hollywood wrote:
>
> So, lemme get this straight. If I accept his salvation (whatever that
> means), I can live forever? Except that I have to die first? In the
> words of the Late Freddy Mercury, "Who wants to live forever? Who needs
> to live forever? Who dares to live forever?"

*lemme*

Are you used car salesman?


> -Hollywood, asking for an answer that will never come. Winning a battle
> against an incapable foe.

(It make me wonder just what type you are who would want to win battle
against incapable person!!) Battle already been won - and not by you,
Hollywood.


Youssefal Qardawi

Art Deco wrote:
> Andrew wrote:
> >Hollywood wrote:
> >> Andrew wrote:
> >> > It seems you now share Bob Pastorio's delusion that the 2PD-OMER
> >> > Approach is a diet.
> >>
> >> Perhaps you do not understand the function of language.
> >
> >Actually I do.
> >
> >> It serves to
> >> allow people with individual minds and ideas to share them. You clearly
> >> do not share English with the rest of the English speaking world if you
> >> believe that your s2PD OMER approach is a diet.
> >
> >Actually, most assuredly, without doubt, I know the 2PD-OMER Approach
> >is not a diet.
>
> So you admit the nutritional content of "2PD-OMER" is zero

No.

The nutritional content depends on a person's diet and not on the
2PD-OMER Approach, which serves to prevent the overeating that was the
proximate and sole cause of a person being heavier than optimal.

For example, we just learned about Diva's dovetailing her "Specific
Carbohydrate Diet" with what is essentially a modified 2PD-OMER
Approach:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...3f9850e51785f?

The nutritional content of her diet addresses her Celiac disease while
her approach has brought about the impressive and permanent weight
reduction from 219 lbs to 144 lbs ! !

>, got it. Do
> you eat sawdust?

No. My diet is a modified AHA low fat/low cholesterol diet that
resembles the Ornish diet. This diet makes me maximally hungry,
therefore maximally healthy.

> >This authority has been given to me by GOD when HE made me the inventor
> >of the 2PD-OMER Approach.
> >
> >By what authority would you use to assert that the 2PD-OMER Approach is
> >a diet ?
> >
> >No need to answer this rhetorical question whose answer can only be
> >that you have no authority.
> >
> >Zero.
> >
> >Nada.
> >
> >Zilch.
> >
> >Null.
> >
> >Nothing.
> >
> >This victorious use of language belongs to GOD, Who is the source of
> >all knowledge and wisdom.
>
> Which in your arrogance you claim for yourself and no one else.

It remains my choice to die to self daily. Where there is no self,
there is only GOD.

> Support ngs snecked again, fraudboi.

Name-calling simply confirms that you are as lost and as vanquished as
Mr. Hollywood:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...7c62dd6bf2f7b?

This victory is GOD's.

Laus Deo ! !

As a consolation prize, you have GOD's offer of salvation and eternal
life:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...058da12bb3f3d?

May GOD in HIS infinite mercy and grace continue to keep your heart
beating to give you time to understand this, dear neighbor Art whom I
love unconditionally.

Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,

Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit

As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...ad7fe68478acf?

First, back to business: Solve the dilemma below. Your cowardice and
lack of mental function is on full display. You are showing very poorly
for your team by failing to even step up to the challenge. This will be
the fifth time I have posed this to you. I will continue until I have
an answer or until you simply stop posting to ASDLC. So, once more,
with feeling:

> > > > > *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> > > > > of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> > > > > improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> > > > > your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> > > > > and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*

> > > > > If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> > > > > untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> > > > > before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> > > > > anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> > > > > untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> > > > > a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> > > > > equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> > > > > of a diet, sir.

I would note that I have yet to be struck dead. Either God doesn't
care, God knows I'm right, God doesn't exist or God's bureaucracy is no
better than man's. As I live and breathe.

Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> Art Deco wrote:
<rest of conversation snipped because it has no relevance to this
discussion>
> > Support ngs snecked again, fraudboi.
>
> Name-calling simply confirms that you are as lost and as vanquished as
> Mr. Hollywood:

I remain unvanquished because you refuse to even enter the field of
battle. You have skirted and squirmed and done everything but address
the central dilemma of your s2PD-OMER diet/approach/diet. Lemme ask you
this. If it is not a diet, and really merely an approach, what is it an
approach to? I suspect it is an approach to eating, and
limiting/restricting your intake of food towards losing weight and/or
improving health. That would be a diet. You lose again. Bad showing.

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...7c62dd6bf2f7b?

This link only shows your silver tongued lying nature. I didn't call
you a name anywhere in it.

If I'm gonna mock you and be lost, I'm going to do it right. Like this.
Say hi to your lover, Mr. Mu, for me. I miss him already. Remind him
that I'm voting No on Virginia Ballot Prop #1, so that you and he can
leave the benighted state of Georgia and join me in Virginia, as a
happily married couple with all the rights, benefits, laws, and
downsides that entails. Keep on and stay proud, Dr. Chung. Someday,
your civil rights to love Mr. Mu as God made you will come to pass in
this land. I'm working for you.

-Hollywood, who reminds you that Mr. Hollywood is his father and not
here to defend himself against your vile perfidiousness.

Is there actual content here?

No.

I didn't think so.

Thanks for playing though.

Time to move on.

ps-
"Battle already been won--..."
Nice use of the language.

-Hollywood, occasionally known as Sheikh Yerbouti
SheikhYoussefalQardawi wrote:
> Hollywood wrote:
> >
> > So, lemme get this straight. If I accept his salvation (whatever that
> > means), I can live forever? Except that I have to die first? In the
> > words of the Late Freddy Mercury, "Who wants to live forever? Who needs
> > to live forever? Who dares to live forever?"
>
> *lemme*
>
> Are you used car salesman?
>
>
> > -Hollywood, asking for an answer that will never come. Winning a battle
> > against an incapable foe.
>
> (It make me wonder just what type you are who would want to win battle
> against incapable person!!) Battle already been won - and not by you,
> Hollywood.
>
>
> Youssefal Qardawi

Hollywood wrote:
> First, back to business: Solve the dilemma below. Your cowardice and
> lack of mental function is on full display. You are showing very poorly
> for your team by failing to even step up to the challenge. This will be
> the fifth time I have posed this to you. I will continue until I have
> an answer or until you simply stop posting to ASDLC. So, once more,
> with feeling:
>
> > > > > > *You yourself have said that your approach involves limiting the intake
> > > > > > of food (to 2LBs, 1KG or 1 Omer or less per day) towards the goal of
> > > > > > improving health (you have cited many positive effects from following
> > > > > > your approach) and losing weight (you have claimed amazing weight loss
> > > > > > and remarkable maintenance of said weight loss with your approach).*
>
> > > > > > If any part of what I have said in the asterisk surrounded statement is
> > > > > > untrue, may you dispute it with proof and may your GOD strike me DEAD
> > > > > > before I hit the post message button. For your "approach" to be
> > > > > > anything other than a diet, one half of the starred statement must be
> > > > > > untrue. Either you do not limit your intake of food or you do not have
> > > > > > a goal of losing weight or improving health. If both sides of the
> > > > > > equation are true, congratulations, you have proved yourself the author
> > > > > > of a diet, sir.
>
> I would note that I have yet to be struck dead. Either God doesn't
> care, God knows I'm right, God doesn't exist or God's bureaucracy is no
> better than man's. As I live and breathe.
>
> Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
> > Art Deco wrote:
> <rest of conversation snipped because it has no relevance to this
> discussion>
> > > Support ngs snecked again, fraudboi.
> >
> > Name-calling simply confirms that you are as lost and as vanquished as
> > Mr. Hollywood:
>
> I remain unvanquished because you refuse to even enter the field of
> battle. You have skirted and squirmed and done everything but address
> the central dilemma of your s2PD-OMER diet/approach/diet. Lemme ask you
> this. If it is not a diet, and really merely an approach, what is it an
> approach to? I suspect it is an approach to eating, and
> limiting/restricting your intake of food towards losing weight and/or
> improving health. That would be a diet. You lose again. Bad showing.
>
> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.m...7c62dd6bf2f7b?
>
> This link only shows your silver tongued lying nature. I didn't call
> you a name anywhere in it.
>
> If I'm gonna mock you and be lost, I'm going to do it right. Like this.
> Say hi to your lover, Mr. Mu, for me. I miss him already. Remind him
> that I'm voting No on Virginia Ballot Prop #1, so that you and he can
> leave the benighted state of Georgia and join me in Virginia, as a
> happily married couple with all the rights, benefits, laws, and
> downsides that entails. Keep on and stay proud, Dr. Chung. Someday,
> your civil rights to love Mr. Mu as God made you will come to pass in
> this land. I'm working for you.
>
> -Hollywood, who reminds you that Mr. Hollywood is his father and not
> here to defend himself against your vile perfidiousness.

Remember this Mr Hollywood:

PRIDE GOES BEFORE A FALL.

Youssefal Qardawi

Sheikh Youssefal Qardawi opined:
<snipped>
> > -Hollywood, who reminds you that Mr. Hollywood is his father and not
> > here to defend himself against your vile perfidiousness.
>
> Remember this Mr Hollywood:
>
> PRIDE GOES BEFORE A FALL.

Then I suggest we should all be watching our steps.

The difference that I discerne between Dr. Chung and myself is as
simple as this. Dr. Chung confirms his certainty. I seek knowledge. I
do not believe that there is a God, but I am open to the possibility
that there isn't. Dr. Chung is certain that there is a God and
therefore is not open to anything but that certainty. This extends into
our conversations about diet. Dr. Chung is certain that his diet has
been revealed Divinely to him. I suspect that his diet is based on
unneccesary deprivation that might be harmful. He only seeks the
knowledge that reinforces his certainty. Anything against his certainty
is dismissed. I entertained a long conversation with him where he
refused to admit any possibility that his certainty that my diet causes
unhealthy lipid peroxidation could be wrong, despite abundant evidence
that there are mitigating factors. This is the central conflict.

I do not see a space for rapproachment between certainty and knowledge.
Hoping to be open to change, I prefer the knowledge version, with it's
constant expansion, refinement, adjustment, and corrections. It offers
less comfort than certainty but I like having the option of knowing
more and revision. Dr. Chung, on the other hand, enjoys the comfort of
certainty and the benefit of never having to say he's wrong, or sorry.
Since the knowledge is ambiguous, but mounting against his case,
perhaps we can observe a case of cognitive dissonance. When you have
certainty in an uncertain world, you must ultimately close your ears or
experience painful bouts of cognitive dissonance. I am not saying that
knowledge eliminates the problem, but it certainly mitigates the
frequency and severity of it.

>From your other writings, I percieve that you are from the Certainty
Camp. Your choice. I do not know enough about your flavor of certainty
to say anything to it, positive or negative. I also do not seek such
information. If you believe in dinosaurs, Darwin, Smith, and the
possibility that you might have been wrong all these years, I have no
quarrel with you. Likewise, if you have no opinion on dieting.

Frankly, Between Dr. Chung and I, I do not see a resolution. Perhaps
you might suggest one. Failing that, well, that'd be a failure,
wouldn't it.

-Hollywood, reminding you that Hollywood is an alias, and similar to a
first name. You wouldn't call me Mr. John if John is my first name. So,
please, Hollywood is the correct, polite address, Sheikh Qardawi. Mr.
Hollywood only makes us both look like we have no idea what we're doing.