 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / General Topics / November 20032PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!
I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS diet and eat good food again, I lost 10 out that 30 lbs by just counting calories. 2PD does not work!!! >I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Interesting. I have never heard of a 2 lbs diet. > Until July I gained 30 lbs >despite following the diet religiously. Too bad. Post your weight gain by month and your food volumes by day and let's take a look at how "religious" and self-defeating you really are. > Now that I gave up that POS >diet and eat good food again, Um any reason you purposefully sabotaged your health by eating crap on the 2 lbs diet, whatever that is? >I lost 10 out that 30 lbs by just >counting calories. 2PD does not work!!! Yes, it takes An Ounce Of Common Sense and you are short by a slew of grams. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS > diet and eat good food again, I lost 10 out that 30 lbs by just > counting calories. 2PD does not work!!! I haven't tried this diet, but by nature of the volume of food you eat on it, I have a hard time picturing such a large weight gain, unless you were eating a pound of crisco or something, or you were underweight to begin with, and this was increasing the amount of food you were eating. Support yourself with some numbers and data, instead of a "blanket" statement. > > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Support yourself with some numbers and data, instead of a "blanket" > statement. An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." The 2PD approach describes limiting food quantity w/o any reference to good or bad food. Since the poster implies he has been eating "bad" food, that perhaps he was actually doing the ketogenic LC diet (plenty of "bad" food there :-). -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." The 2PD > approach describes limiting food quantity w/o any reference to good or bad [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Board-Certified Cardiologist > http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Who am I to argue :) Though even you indicated in your FAQ's Perhaps the diet requires an ounce of common sense along with the 2 pounds of food? It does :-) That alone suggests to me that you should be eating good food and not trying to eat horrible food to loose weight. Sure, if you're eating massive ammounts of horrible food, reducing the volume is going to help. Though if you're eating a somewhat reasonable diet, just with a volume that is too high - then switch over to eating 2 lbs of junk a day... Common sense just seems to apply. Perhaps I also read between the lines a bit... My two cents :) Dan > > An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." The > 2PD [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Sure, if you're eating massive ammounts of horrible food, reducing the > volume is going to help. Yep. > Though if you're eating a somewhat reasonable > diet, just with a volume that is too high - then switch over to eating 2 lbs > of junk a day... Common sense just seems to apply. The switch to junk would mean that you are following some other diet (ie Atkins :-). > Perhaps I also read > between the lines a bit... Nothing between the lines to read. > My two cents :) > > Dan Your 2 cents is appreciated. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > > > An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." > > > The [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Atkins > :-). huh? Meat and veggies are junk?  Signature-Michelle Levin (Luna) http://www.mindspring.com/~lunachick http://www.mindspring.com/~designbyluna >>>> An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." >>>> The [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > huh? Meat and veggies are junk? Don't forget we are talking about Planet Chung here. On Planet Chung all things Chung says are true because he has been "blessed with the gift of truth discernment" (quote from Chung... you can google it). Steve http://www.google.com/groups?q=discernment+group:sci.med.cardiology+auth or:chung&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF- 8&safe=off&selm=3F8F1175.A0C8C1F0%40heartmdphd.com&rnum=1 > >>>> An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." > >>>> The [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > or:chung&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF- > 8&safe=off&selm=3F8F1175.A0C8C1F0%40heartmdphd.com&rnum=1 Funny how these morons came into these newsgroups saying that if you ate 2 pounds of food a day you'd lose weight. Now they come back and say, "but you can't eat this, or this, oh yeah and you can't eat that either." Bob P. is right. By the time they put all of their "restrictions" on this silly diet, it will be a POW diet if it isn't already. Chris > Funny how these morons came into these newsgroups saying that if you ate 2 > pounds of food a day you'd lose weight. Now they come back and say, "but you > can't eat this, or this, oh yeah and you can't eat that either." Bob P. is > right. By the time they put all of their "restrictions" on this silly diet, > it will be a POW diet if it isn't already. As Batman used to say, "POW." He also said "KERBLAM" now and again. He didn't actually say those things, they were usually in big letters next to the bad guys when he hit them. But I think of Batman when I see POW. Both c and Bob P. have their strong points, but neither is too clear on this diet of mine. It's so simple that even they should get it. You may eat two pounds of food per day if you want to lose weight. Period. I've said it and said it until my little but surprisingly limber 5'3" frame trembles. I mean, what's so hard about that? Sometimes I just want to scream and throw my feather boa across the room. Mu is allergic to feathers, so I can't wear it when he drops by. You have my kitty. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Bread-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >> Funny how these morons came into these newsgroups saying that if you ate 2 >> pounds of food a day you'd lose weight. Now they come back and say, "but [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Andrew It's good to see that you recognize what a joke the Two Pound Diet is. For a while there, I thought you took it seriously. I still think you should leave up the web page so we can all have a good laugh from time to time... oh, and the libel one too... that's a real chuckle-flusher. SignatureGod's Other Humble Servant Steve > <fabricated message snipped> You have my pity. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Steve (2) Report Steve to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie Steve, JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >> Steve wrote: >>>> c wrote: >>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> can't eat this, or this, oh yeah and you can't eat that either." Bob P. is >>>> right. By the time they put all of their "restrictions" on this silly diet, >>>> it will be a POW diet if it isn't already. > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>> >>> Andrew >>It's good to see that you recognize what a joke the Two Pound Diet is. >>For a while there, I thought you took it seriously. I still think you >>should leave up the web page so we can all have a good laugh from time >>to time... oh, and the libel one too... that's a real chuckle-flusher. <Chung's attempt to cover up his folly snipped> FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp (Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound") Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp (Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound") These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, SignatureGod's Other Humble Servant Steve > <fabricated message snipped> I'm flattered by the imitation. Thanks. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Steve (2) Report Steve to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie Steve, JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >> <fabricated message snipped> > > I'm flattered by the imitation. Thanks. Only you would mistake mockery for flattery. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for "Pound" everywhere. These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is jealous that Steve has improved on his diet. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross- posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve > >> <fabricated message snipped> > > > > I'm flattered by the imitation. Thanks. > > Only you would mistake mockery for flattery. Nice juxtaposition of truth and fiction. I remain flattered. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Steve (2) Report Steve to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >>>> <fabricated message snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I remain flattered. As long as you consider mockery flattery, I will be be my pleasure to oblige. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for "Pound" everywhere. These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is jealous that Steve has improved on his diet. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross- posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve "Imposter" wrote: > <fabricated post snipped> Was it wise to impersonate a physician? Post with full headers has been forwarded to the proper authorities. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > "Imposter" wrote: > >> <fabricated post snipped> <http://www.heartmdphd.com> > > Was it wise to impersonate a physician? But who would know better than me? > Post with full headers has been forwarded to the proper authorities. Why do I hate the proper authorities? I have my pity. SignatureDr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Beard-Certified Cardiotrician http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > "Imposter" wrote: > >> <fabricated post snipped> > > Was it wise to impersonate a physician? Perhaps you should ask yourself the same question. SignatureGod's Other Humble Servant Steve > >>>> An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." > >>>> The [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > <hissing snipped> Yes, I continue to write truthfully as God's humble servant. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Steve (2) Report Steve to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com < Jealous Hissing by Chung Snipped> As a Public Service I would like to introduce the Two Foot Diet. Many of you have been tempted to try Dr. Chung's Amazing Weight Defying Two Pound Diet but the idea of carrying a scale around has scared you off... that's why I have developed the Two Foot Diet! In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? ---------- FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp (Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound") Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp (Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound") These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, SignatureGod's Other Humble Servant Steve >An important clue is the poster's reference to "eat good food again." A more important clue... Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net With a few exceptions, only trolls use remailers. SignatureRon Ritzman http://www.panix.com/~ritzlart Smart people can figure out my email address >A more important clue... > >Mail-To-News-Contact: postmaster@nym.alias.net > >With a few exceptions, only trolls use remailers. Funny thing about trolls who regularly come to newsgroups to slam The Simple Two Pound Diet, they usually start threads that discuss it, as we are doing now, which promotes it, as we are doing now. Did you know the two longest threads in the history of alt.support.diet, alt.support.diet.low-carb and sci.med.cardiology were all about the 2PDiet? And I wasn't even here most of that time! lol http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > > > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > > > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > food. Since the poster implies he has been eating "bad" food, that perhaps he > was actually doing the ketogenic LC diet (plenty of "bad" food there :-). The two pound diet is complete and utter nonsense. Whoever came up with that idea is an idiot. The weight of food has no relation to whether or not it is fattening. It has a more to do with water content. And when you consider de-hydrated foods, it becomes laughable. TC >> > > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs >> > > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > TC 2 lbs of dehydrated bananas, now that's going to make anyone fatter! i 223/176/180 Eating WAY MORE than 2 lbs of food per day... >The two pound diet is complete and utter nonsense. Explain why. Be exact. No blanket, moronic statements now. >Whoever came up >with that idea is an idiot. Moronic statement Number Two. You haven't a clue, do you? http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Read the website first. >The weight of food has no relation to >whether or not it is fattening. It has a more to do with water >content. And when you consider de-hydrated foods, it becomes >laughable. Well, there are a lot of folks laffing at you right about now and I am one of them. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > >The two pound diet is complete and utter nonsense. > > Explain why. Be exact. No blanket, moronic statements now. Because it is! > >Whoever came up > >with that idea is an idiot. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Read the website first. I have read the website and couldn't believe that any self respecting medical doctor would go public with such a stupid idea. > >The weight of food has no relation to > >whether or not it is fattening. It has a more to do with water [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html > Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. You are in the minority. If f.cking around with peoples health wasn't so despicable, I'd be laughing too. TC Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >You are in the minority. If f.cking around with peoples health wasn't >so despicable, I'd be laughing too. You are in the minority. If f.cking around with peoples health wasn't so despicable, I'd be laughing too. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! In fact, I am laughing. I am laughing at YOU! Just thought that you might want to know. :) Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >The two pound diet is complete and utter nonsense. Whoever came up >with that idea is an idiot. Must be TC, ... Huh? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Jeff Engels at Jeff_engels@tx.net talked on .... > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS > diet and eat good food again, I lost 10 out that 30 lbs by just > counting calories. 2PD does not work!!! Not to open a can of worms .. But what exactly is the 2PD Two Pound Diet?? **running from the fallout** SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/161.6/130 Start: September 2003 >But what exactly is the 2PD Two Pound Diet?? http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. > Jeff Engels at Jeff_engels@tx.net talked on .... > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > **running from the fallout** Some idiot came up with the idea that if you weigh everything that you eat and not eat more than 2 lbs of food per day that somehow you could lose weight and be healthier. Real scientific, eh? And this guy is a trained doctor of medicine! It says a lot about the quality of training that doctors get in the US, especially the traing they get, or don't get, in nutrition. TC >Some idiot http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp >came up with the idea that if you weigh everything that you >eat and not eat more than 2 lbs of food per day that somehow you could >lose weight and be healthier. http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp > Real scientific, eh? And this guy is a >trained doctor of medicine! If you know about Chung, why do you use the phrase "some idiot"? http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >> Some idiot > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If you know about Chung, why do you use the phrase "some idiot"? Umm... because he knows about Chung? Steve >>Some idiot > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > If you know about Chung, why do you use the phrase "some idiot"? Res ipsa loquitur. Pastorio tcomeau at tunderbar@hotmail.com talked on .... > Some idiot came up with the idea that if you weigh everything that you > eat and not eat more than 2 lbs of food per day that somehow you could > lose weight and be healthier. Real scientific, eh? And this guy is a > trained doctor of medicine! It says a lot about the quality of > training that doctors get in the US, especially the traing they get, > or don't get, in nutrition. Oh .... **looks left .. Looks right .. Looks severely perplexed** okay .. Makes sense - yeah right .. Go ahead .. Eat 2 lbs of popcorn and see if you lose weight <-- popcorn addict ;) Ty for the explanation SignatureKitty =^..^= 168/161.6/130 September 17 2003 Once upon a time, our fellow tcomeau rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Real scientific, eh? From what I have seen, that sounds like a pretty sound recommendation to me. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > > Jeff Engels at Jeff_engels@tx.net talked on .... > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > eat and not eat more than 2 lbs of food per day that somehow you could > lose weight and be healthier. Imagine that. > Real scientific, eh? Sounds more mathematical than heretical to me. > And this guy is a > trained doctor of medicine! and a humble servant of God too :-) > It says a lot about the quality of > training that doctors get in the US, Yes, that innovative spirit is everywhere in the U.S. > especially the traing they get, > or don't get, in nutrition. Sounds like they are rewriting the book with their innovation :-) Thank you for your astute observations. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at TC (2) Report TC to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com You are an embarassment to the medical profession and to humanity in general. Quack. TC > <libelous comment snipped> You have my pity. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at TC (2) Report TC to his ISP for violating their TOS with his libel and defamation. (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >> <libelous comment snipped> > > You have my pity. Keep your pity. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp (Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound") Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp (Just substitute "Foot" for "Pound") These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, SignatureGod's Other Humble Servant Steve > >> <libelous comment snipped> > > > > You have my pity. > > Keep your pity. You also have it. Thanks for spreading the word. You are doing a great job :-) FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Steve (2) Report Steve to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie Steve, JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >>>> <libelous comment snipped> >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You also have it. Save it for yourself... you need it more than I. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for "Pound" everywhere. These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is jealous that Steve has improved on his diet. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross- posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve <imitation snipped> Thanks for spreading the word. Truth is glorified by the backdrop of fiction. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Steve (2) Report Steve to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com > From: nospam@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) > Newsgroups: alt.support.diet, alt.support.diet.low-carb, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Truth is glorified by the backdrop of fiction. It is a pleasure to be of such service to you. Please let me know if there is any other way that I can hold you up to ridicule. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for "Pound" everywhere. These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is jealous that Steve has improved on his diet. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross- posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve >><imitation snipped> >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is a pleasure to be of such service to you. Please let me know if > there is any other way that I can hold you up to ridicule. It appears to me that you are holding Dr. Chung up to ridicule. Mu_Tant Ninja Kirtle (the real McCoy, not the old one) Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! TRY THE TWO FOOT DIET INSTEAD!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >(1) Yell at Steve >(2) Report Steve to his ISP >(3) Killfile this thread. >(4) Killfile me. >(5) Read about free speech. I have seen this post about 5 times today. I am therefore reporting Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD to his ISP for Spamming the internet. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! TRY THE TWO FOOT [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Just thought that you might want to know. :) To whom are you addressing your comment? If you succeed in getting Dr. Chung dismissed from his ISP, he can certainly come to my house and use my machine. I like it when he uses my machine, if you catch my drift. Say n'more. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Mu_Tant Ninja Kirtle (the gen-u-wyne article) Once upon a time, our fellow "@big dress.com" <""MuMu\"@big dress.com"> rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! TRY THE TWO FOOT DIET INSTEAD!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> I am therefore reporting Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD to his ISP for >> Spamming the internet. >To whom are you addressing your comment? If you succeed in getting Dr. >Chung dismissed from his ISP, he can certainly come to my house and >use my machine. I like it when he uses my machine, if you catch my >drift. Say n'more. Nudge, nudge, wink, wink. Actually, Chung "Crashed" these ngs rather than "Spammed" them. But, it is all a violation of the ISP's TOS agreement. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > > <libelous comment snipped> <garbage snipped> Sue me. TC Chung has no idea what is libelous and what is not. Libel is a false printed statement of fact that tends to injure a person's reputation. The elements that must be proved to establish defamation are: (1) A publication to one other than the person defamed; (2) of a false statement of fact; (3) which is understood as being of and concerning the plaintiff; and (4) which is understood in such a way as to tend to harm the reputation of plaintiff. E.g. if I call you a turd, it is not defamation. Calling you a turd is not a statement of fact. Now if I said that you stole my wallet (and you did not steal my wallet), then it would be defamation. i 223/176/180 >> > <libelous comment snipped> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > TC > Chung has no idea what is libelous and what is not. Purposefully calling a board-certified licensed physician a "quack" is libel. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Purposefully calling a board-certified licensed physician a "quack" is libel. If it walks like a duck, looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck ... then it is a duck! Just thought that you might want to know. :) And, board-certified licensed physicians do manage to loose their licenses to be Quacks. Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And, board-certified licensed physicians do manage to loose their > licenses to be Quacks. Till then, it remains libel. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ >> Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD >> rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Board-Certified Cardiologist > http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Sir of Madam: We have been notified by one, Mr. Meux, that you are IMPERSONATING A PHYSICIAN! If you do not cease and desist immediately, dire consequences for you will follow. The Proper Authorities Once upon a time, our fellow The Proper Authorities rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Sir of Madam: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >The Proper Authorities -- Mental illness happens to be real, live and well on these ngs. Or, is it just a case of TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE? http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regushpeople.html Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> And, board-certified licensed physicians do manage to loose their >> licenses to be Quacks. >Till then, it remains libel. So, currently you are practicing as a Quack? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! <libelous comments snipped> You have my pity. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at John (2) Report John to his ISP for violating their TOS with his libel and defamation. (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com > From: nospam@heartmdphd.com (Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD) > Newsgroups: alt.support.diet, alt.support.diet.low-carb, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You have my pity. Who doesn't :-) FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at Chung (2) Report Chung to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) which I developed as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Though Steve invented this approach, he did not initiate this Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/hypocrite.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 foot diet approach. They have debated Steve on every perceived weakness of the 2 foot diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp ... just substitute "Foot" for "Pound" everywhere. These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this and other discussion threads. However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 foot diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Steve has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2FD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2FD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/moreChungbullshit (3) Steve did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 foot diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Steve's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Dr. Chung who is jealous that Steve has improved on his diet. When the full light was cast on Dr. Chung's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity, most notably Mu, only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/sign_up_to_be_a_patient.asp Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss, most notably Mu: (1) They are anonymous and thus expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Steve by cross- posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2FD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. Unfortunately, they keep Mu_Tating so that it is impossible to killfile them. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to participate here on Usenet above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which >is described completely at: This ng, ie, sci.med.nutrition, is not a diet support newgroup. You post to this ng, ... and I will be responding. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) -- Mental illness happens to be real, live and well on these ngs. Or, is it just a case of TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE? http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regushpeople.html > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So, currently you are practicing as a Quack? Dr. Quack to you. Mu_Tant Ninja Kirtle (the new, improved one) > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > So, currently you are practicing as a Quack? Nope. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> >Till then, it remains libel. >> So, currently you are practicing as a Quack? >Nope. Well Mr. Physician do you "Treat the Patient" or do you "Treat the Disease?" And, please explain in detail how you treat new patients. That way we the consumer public can ascertain whether you are a Quack or not. -- John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as medical. > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Well Mr. Physician do you "Treat the Patient" or do you "Treat the > Disease?" The patient. > And, please explain in detail how you treat new patients. Depends on the patient(s). > That way we the consumer public can ascertain whether you are a Quack > or not. A "quack" is a non-physician pretending to be a physician. There should be numerous examples here on Usenet for comparison purposes. > -- > John Gohde, You need only visit my web site to verify that I am truly a physician and not a "quack." -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Well Mr. Physician do you "Treat the Patient" or do you "Treat the >> Disease?" [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Depends on the patient(s). Ha, ... Hah, Ha! An excellent example of empty rhetoric. :( "... you have my sympathies" Science Officer Ash to Ripley, in the movie ALIEN. > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > An excellent example of empty rhetoric. :( Truth is hardly empty. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >>Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD >> rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Truth is hardly empty. What a wonderful non sequitur. Four words that each have meaning except when taken together. Then all meaning departs. And the wonderful mock-serene tone like that Kung-fu guy from the tv program in the 70's who said all that mock-profound stuff that didn't really mean anything. Grasshopper. John characterized it accurately. Chung's post is empty. As usual. Pastorio Once upon a time, our fellow Bob Pastorio rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >John characterized it accurately. Chung's post is empty. As usual. Yes, I just demonstrated how a physician is supposed to 'treat the patient.' Unfortunately, this patient is not cooperating with his doctor. :( Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> An excellent example of empty rhetoric. :( >Truth is hardly empty. The Truth is Doc, you are a Quack by your own words. Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Just thought that you might want to know. :) Are you being wise, writing the above? -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Are you being wise, writing the above? You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting "patients". You bought your credentials on the internet. Shame on you. > > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > <libelous statements snipped> He's baaack. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at JC (2) Report JC to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> The Truth is Doc, you are a Quack by your own words. >> Just thought that you might want to know. :) >Are you being wise, writing the above? Truth is always the best defense against fraudulent motions for judgement. Been there, ... done it. :) Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS > ON IT!." Well you were known for looks, not brains! SignatureDiva ***** The Best Man for the Job May Be A Woman Once upon a time, our fellow Carol Frilegh rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >Well you were known for looks, not brains! >Diva Women are known for their looks, not brains! But, FatSo's ... Ha, ... Hah, Ha! Just thought that you might want to know. :) > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Truth is always the best defense against fraudulent motions for > judgement. It is. > Been there, ... done it. :) How did it feel to be defenseless? > Just thought that you might want to know. :) Exhibit A: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Exhibit A: You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting "patients". You bought your credentials on the internet. Shame on you. > > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > > >http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp <libelous statements snipped> FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at JC (2) Report JC to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com > > > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > > > > > Exhibit A: You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting "patients". You bought your credentials on the internet. Shame on you. Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> > Exhibit A: >> > >> >http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp > ><libelous statements snipped> I thought that all orientals were intelligent. :() I must have been mistaken? It appears that a few are mentally ill. :( -- Mental illness happens to be real, live and well on these ngs. Or, is it just a case of TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE? http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regushpeople.html > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Or, is it just a case of TOTALLY STUPID PEOPLE? > http://www.redflagsweekly.com/regushpeople.html Keep hissing if you want to. God has given you free will. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at John (2) Report John to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> Been there, ... done it. :) >How did it feel to be defenseless? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! I was the Plaintiff, ... Twit! > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I was the Plaintiff, ... Twit! And now you want to be the defendant without a defense? Is that wise? -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Is that wise? You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting "patients". You bought your credentials on the internet. Shame on you. > > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > <libelous statements snipped> Case in point for an example of someone who is unwise. FYI Note: I am aware that I am responding to a cross-posted message. Because the author of the message to which I am responding did not request that the header be trimmed, I have not trimmed it. If you are upset about reading this message, a few suggestions: (1) Yell at JC (2) Report JC to his ISP (3) Killfile this thread. (4) Killfile me. (5) Read about free speech. This discussion(s) is related to the 2 pound diet approach (2PD) which is described completely at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp Though Dr. Chung invented this approach, he did not initiate the Usenet discussion(s). His participation in this discussion(s) has been voluntary and has been conducted in the spirit of community service. His motivation has been entirely altruistic and has arisen from his religious beliefs as a Christian. Jesus freely gave of Himself to better the health of folks He touched: http://www.heartmdphd.com/healer.asp From the outset, it has been clear that there are those who are vehemently opposed to the 2 pound diet approach. They have debated Dr. Chung on every perceived weakness of the 2 pound diet approach and have lost the argument soundly at every point: http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtlossfaqs.asp These debates are archived on Google in their entirety within this discussion thread(s). However, instead of conceding gracefully that they've lost the argument(s), certain parties have redirected their hatred of the 2 pound diet approach toward its author. The rationale appears to be "if you can not discredit the message then try to discredit the messenger." Initially, these folks accused the messenger of "trolling." A "troll" is someone who posts under the cloak of anonymity messages with no redeeming discussion value and with the sole purpose of starting "flame" wars. These hateful folks lost credibility with this accusation when the following observations were made: (1) Dr. Chung has not been posting anonymously. (2) The 2PD has been on-topic for the Usenet discussion groups hosting the discussion(s). (a) Those who are failing low-carbing can dovetail LC with the 2PD to achieve near-ideal weight. (b) Obese diabetics improve their blood glucose control when their weight becomes near-ideal. (c) For (b) see: http://tinyurl.com/levc (3) Dr. Chung did not start the discussion(s). (4) The 2 pound diet approach is 100% free (no profit motive). (5) Dr. Chung's credentials are real and easily verified on-line (including jpegs of the actual diplomas). Full of hatred, frustration, and desperation, certain individuals have tried to attack Dr. Chung's credentials knowing full well that they were attempting to libel him. One notable example is Mr. Pastorio: http://www.heartmdphd.com/libel.asp When the full light was cast on Mr. Pastorio's libelous statements, the hateful folks hiding in the darkness of anonymity only hissed louder in support of their fallen hero. Fortunately, those who have been following this discussion(s) either actively or as lurkers can easily dismiss the hisses, for what they are, using the on-line third-party resources at: http://www.heartmdphd.com/profile.asp where Dr. Chung's credentials can be verified many times over and libelous claims that credentials were bought are easily and summarily debunked. Moreover, readers need only make the following observations concerning the anon posters who continue to hiss (ie JC Der Koenig and Mack): (1) They are anonymous and thus they expect to have no credibility (or accountability). (2) They are by their Usenet history courtesy of Google, unsavory characters. (3) They have not added anything to the discussion(s) except to deliver one-sided insults. (4) They complain about alleged cross-posts from Dr. Chung by cross-posting. (5) They do not complain about cross-posts from folks who attack the 2PD or its author. and conclude that these anon posters deserve only their kill file. It is my hope that the above brings new readers of this thread up to speed. It will remain my pleasure to continue the discussion(s) about the 2PD above the din of hissing from the peanut gallery. Sincerely, Andrew -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ > > > > Once upon a time, our fellow Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > > > rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Case in point for an example of someone who is unwise. You're an idiot and a quack. There's no way you should be giving any type of medical advice. That's why you don't have access to a hospital, and why you were fired in Florida. This is also why you troll usenet for unsuspecting "patients". You bought your credentials on the internet. Shame on you. >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Ha, ... Hah, Ha! For a real web site check out mine below. -- John Gohde, Patient Empowerment Advocate http://home.naturalhealthperspective.com/empowerment.html Email: Ngs@NaturalHealthPerspective.com www.NaturalHealthPerspective.com - Pioneering De-Medicalization by handing back the power to the people, encouraging self care and autonomy, and resisting the categorization of life's problems as medical. > >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > > Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > > For a real web site check out mine below. Based on your behavior (and maniacal laughter), I choose to pass on the invite. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com >> >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Based on your behavior (and maniacal laughter), I choose to pass on the >invite. Oh, surely you're used to being laughed at by now. Dawn >>>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Oh, surely you're used to being laughed at by now. Yes, I am rather used to being laughed at by now, particularly by my neighbors. I actually prefer loud guffaws to mild titters or muffled chuckles. I used to believe that titters was a bad word. The hearty laugh is a signal that they have either a very healthy outlook or they're drinking all my booze again. SignatureDr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Beard-Certified UsedCarDealogist http://www.heartmdphd.com > >> >Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD > >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Dawn Didn't bother Christ. Doesn't bother me. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ >>>>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Didn't bother Christ. Doesn't bother me. People also laughed at Bozo the Clown... that might be a more apt comparison. It is certainly a more "humble" one. SignatureGod's Other Humble Servant Steve >> Chung has no idea what is libelous and what is not. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Board-Certified Cardiologist > http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Sir of Madam: We have been notified by one, Mr. Meux, that you are IMPERSONATING A PHYSICIAN! If you do not cease and desist immediately, dire consequences for you will follow. The Proper Authorities > Jeff Engels at Jeff_engels@tx.net talked on .... > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > But what exactly is the 2PD Two Pound Diet?? http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp > **running from the fallout** No need to run. Right is might. -- Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Board-Certified Cardiologist http://www.heartmdphd.com/ Jeff_engels@tx.net (Jeff Engels) > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS Sounds like you were consuming 625 calories too many per day. That would lead to 30 lb gain in 24 weeks, assuming you didn't increase your exercise. > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS > diet and eat good food again, I lost 10 out that 30 lbs by just > counting calories. 2PD does not work!!! You're a real soldier: most people would have quit after gaining only 15 lbs. Lost 10 lbs by "just calorie counting?" Did you count the calories of what you ate 2 pounds of to see where the diet went wrong? If you eat 2 pounds of Jelly Bellies per day, for example, it was probably too much. You still need to be reasonable about WHAT you eat. >> I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs >> despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > 2 pounds of Jelly Bellies per day, for example, it was probably too > much. You still need to be reasonable about WHAT you eat. Ah, but AL, had he followed the _Two Foot Diet_ , it would have worked :-) Since each Jelly Bean is approximately 3/4 inch in length he would have only eaten 32 of them. See what a vast improvement that is over the TPD? --- Because this discussion concerns the Two Pound Diet (2PD), I am providing the following as a Public Service: I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve > Because this discussion concerns the Two Pound Diet (2PD), I am > providing the following as a Public Service: > > I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for > Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to > carry a scale around. (snip) LOL! >Lost 10 lbs by "just calorie counting?" Did you count the calories of >what you ate 2 pounds of to see where the diet went wrong? If you eat >2 pounds of Jelly Bellies per day, for example, it was probably too >much. You still need to be reasonable about WHAT you eat. An Ounce Of Common Sense. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >> Lost 10 lbs by "just calorie counting?" Did you count the calories of >> what you ate 2 pounds of to see where the diet went wrong? If you eat >> 2 pounds of Jelly Bellies per day, for example, it was probably too >> much. You still need to be reasonable about WHAT you eat. > > An Ounce Of Common Sense. Or better yet, An Inch of Common Sense..... Because this discussion concerns the Two Pound Diet (2PD), I am providing the following as a Public Service: I have developed the Two Foot Diet approach (2FD) as a replacement for Dr. Chung's Amazing Logic Defying Two Pound Diet to avoid having to carry a scale around. In 2003, my wife and I watched an IMAX film about climbing the Bavarian Alps and learned that despite their exhausting regimen, the climbers consumed only 10 packages of wieners per week. That's less than 2 feet of wieners per day! Since none of the climbers died from starvation, I think it is safe to assume that 2 feet of food per day should be more than adequate for us non-climbing folks. So I started a little experiment with the agreeable obese friends in my neighborhood. I gave them ordinary 6 inch rulers with instructions to measure the length of everything substantial that passed into their mouths. The only things exempted were water and sugar-free drinks. What I learned was that my obese friends were consuming between 8 to 12 feet of food per day! At the time, I was about 10 lbs. over my ideal body weight so I decided to find out how much I was eating per day... 3 feet. I cut back to less than 2 feet and was at my proper weight in one month. My friends have responded similarly except they have taken longer because of having to lose more weight. Admittedly, some of my obese friends were especially slow to respond. They also happen to be the ones with an unfortunate propensity for accidentally loosing their 6 inch rulers and taking weeks to buy replacements. So here's the deal: measure all the food you eat, using it's longest dimension, and keep the total length to less than two feet per day. That's all there is. No scales, no counting calories or carbohydrates. Heck, if you loose your ruler, you can even use the first joint of your thumb to measure. I am making this diet available as a public service and without compensation. If you have any questions, just see Dr. Chung's helpful FAQ and substitute "Two Feet" for "Two Pounds" everywhere... what could be simpler? Sincerely, God's Other Humble Servant Steve >>Lost 10 lbs by "just calorie counting?" Did you count the calories of >>what you ate 2 pounds of to see where the diet went wrong? If you eat >>2 pounds of Jelly Bellies per day, for example, it was probably too >>much. You still need to be reasonable about WHAT you eat. > > An Ounce Of Common Sense. Please don't forget to subtract that from your daily two pound allotment. That would bring it to one pound and fifteen ounces in the USA and 880 grams in the civilized world. SignatureDr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Bread-Certified Cardiomagician http://www.heartmdphd.com/ >> An Ounce Of Common Sense. > >Please don't forget to subtract that from your daily two pound >allotment. That would bring it to one pound and fifteen ounces in the >USA and 880 grams in the civilized world. Enjoy yourself while you can. I would suspect SuperNews to cancel you in about three hours. Hope you prepaid a year. Importers usually make that mistake. http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030724.html Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long. >>>An Ounce Of Common Sense. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > in about three hours. Hope you prepaid a year. Importers usually make > that mistake. Is the three hours up yet? Why, yes, it is. This is particularly enjoyable, as you note, because it is what you do and now it is being done to you. There is a particularly sweet component to it, and it is this: You are helpless to prevent it. You are helpless to affect it. You are impotent in the face of being treated appropriately. Based on the tone of your comment above, it would seem you dislike being mocked with your own tools. I would try very hard to become used to it if I were you. Deliberate sowing of confusion is never an attractive activity yet you feel compelled, obsessed, it would appear, to perform your daily quota of pointless attention-attracting. Perhaps you need to report all this to The Proper Authorities. Be sure to include samples of your own posts as rather mundane but plentiful templates for the form. Mu_Tant Ninja Kirtle (the real one, not the discount store version) Once upon a time, our fellow AL DiSanto rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >You're a real soldier: most people would have quit after gaining only >15 lbs. Personally, I am going for a gain of 25 pounds! That must put me at the head of the pack? Ha, ... Hah, Ha! > I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs > despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS > diet and eat good food again, I lost 10 out that 30 lbs by just > counting calories. 2PD does not work!!! Hey, Jeff, you weren't supposed to eat two pounds of bacon fat a day! Once upon a time, our fellow George W. Cherry rambled on about "Re: 2PD TWO POUND DIET IS sh.t! I GAINED 30 LBS ON IT!." Our champion De-Medicalizing in sci.med.nutrition retorts, thusly ... >> I went on a 2 lbs diet in February 2002. Until July I gained 30 lbs >> despite following the diet religiously. Now that I gave up that POS [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Hey, Jeff, you weren't supposed to eat two >pounds of bacon fat a day! Was that 2 pounds of bacon before or after cooking? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.