Re: A Waist is a Good Thing to Mind

From: Zee (fresh~horses_at_despammed.com)
Date: 09/22/04 

Date: 21 Sep 2004 19:18:01 -0700

Bob (this one) wrote:
> Zee wrote:
>
> > Gentlemen
> >
> > It wasn't a diagnosis. It *was* apparently too fine a
point--because
> > you both missed it. It was that Don has had need of a
cardiologist's
> > help, but comes here not to post studies to further anyone's
knowledge,
> > or discuss cardiology, but to be abusive toward our (virtually)
only
> > cardiologist. On a cardiology newsgroup!
>
> C'mon with that "abusive" business. You make it sound like Andrew is
> the voice of serene, virginal reason and others are deliberately
> assaulting him for no reason. You *know* that isn't the case or
> anything remotely like it. Andrew posts a lot of crap that
> demonstrates his lack of integrity. Why would not a reasonable person

> assume that it applies across his entire way of doing things?
>
> And your note seems to say that Chung is entirely blameless in this
> process. His frenzied hyperreligiosity and his frequent use of
> fighting words underscore his complicity, at least, and instigations,

> more often.
>
> He posted today that his "truth discernment" means he's never wrong
> about what he "discerns." Really...? This deserves moderation and
respect?
>
> > Is there something about having had heart disease I am missing that
> > makes men who have recovered from it want to spend their new found
> > health bashing a cardiologist?
>
> This is somewhat difficult to accept from you given the amount of
> energy you spend "bashing" statins and "abusing" those who don't
agree
> with your positions.
>
> The other thing that's difficult is this categorizing of a whole
class
> of people as you do. You try to make it a general principle when it
is
> a very specific individual with very specific behaviors that have
been
> more fully detailed than your example includes. It's not about "A"
> cardiologist and it's certainly not unilateral "bashing." It's about
> "one" cardiologist who has demonstrated quackery, charlatanism,
> deceit, evasion, malice (and too many more negative *behaviors* to
> list briefly) being called on them.
>
> The simplest solution is for him to settle down and act like a
> rational person, even if it's only acting. Drop that smugly superior
> style. Don't deliberately provoke people who ask him not to shower
> them with his religious claptrap. Don't do those phony crossposts for

> the "convenience" of others who want no part of his trolling and
> spamming. Things like that.
>
> Don Kirkman posted a very incisive note today in reply to you:
>
> "Hammering" is your word, but providing information to counter error
> and ignorance, while very serious business, can also be enjoyable and

> done in one's spare time. Most good humorists are very serious
people
> at heart. Andrew merely presents himself as a ready target, but I
> don't focus on him; I find trolls, bigots, ill-informed disputants,
> and even unfortunate under-educated people everywhere, not just in
> newsgroups.
>
> Would "hammering" describe your vendetta against doctors and
> researchers who believe in statins? :-)
> <<<<<<<<<< end quote >>>>>>>>>>
>
> Most of the notes about Chung deal exactly with his
> non-cardiology-related behaviors. He invites and virtually guarantees

> the responses he gets. He has to be utterly around the bend to even
> remotely believe he's doing anything good with his bizarre behavior.
>
> As long as Chung does his high-wire, thrill-a-minute nutso stuff,
> there'll be people to explain that this emperor is stark, buck, bare,

> absolutely naked with his mind flapping in the wind. He's dangerous
> with his view that faith trumps science. And he claims to be a
scientist.
>
> Bob

Nice hearing from you Bob....

and hearing from you

and hearing from you

and hearing from you

and hearing from you

and hearing from you

and hearing from you................

Don't *** with me Pastorio or this time I'll get Trigger to piss on
you.

Zee

Quantcast