| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Sanitys Little Helper" |
| Date: |
05 Sep 2007 02:40:46 PM |
| Object: |
Re: The inevitability of an influenza pandemic. |
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
news:1188939982.359794.302030@57g2000hsv.googlegroups.com to
alt.support.anxiety-panic:
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2b7ec3aed38156
d6?
<snip>
Still here helping folks by posting on usenet in between seeing
patients :-)
Well, 8 years ago until now is quite a long interval, but it is an
interval.
My usenet posts have not been separated by 8 year intervals :-)
Sophistry and supercilliousness noted.
You'd make a good Jesuit, you would, Andy!
It remains my choice to not be religious.
Your repetitiveness/verbigeration indicates otherwise.
Not for folks with normal reading comprehension.
Do I need to point out the obvious?
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
<incoherent babbling snipped>
Incoherent babbling? Oh, yes! the repeated request, written in perfectly
good English - my native tongue for 52 years - that you tell us exactly
where you treat patients.
We all want to know.
Still the truth, despite your sophistry and cheap insults.
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it. You're the one
trying to pull rank, you're the one claiming to be not just a doctor, but
a consultant. Prove it, or your rank-pulling is futile, and your
"helping" people is very probably contrary to the law.
Here are some helpful questions, which you should be happy to answer in a
direct and unambiguous manner:
What is the name and location of the practice/hospital where you have
lawful permission to treat patients?
What inspection process is it subject to, and by whom?
When does its licence expire?
Can you show us samples of its documentation e.g. brochures, patient
information, weekly cleaning and inspection schedule, policies/procedures
for the sterilization of instruments, infection control policy? If not,
can you at least point us to an up-to-date inspection report for the
practice you work at?
How many patients have you treated in the last 12 months?
These are not leading questions, they are your opportunity to establish
your credibility.
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Brain surgeon.
Not authentic without this signature.
.
|
|
| User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
|
| Title: Re: The inevitability of an influenza pandemic. |
05 Sep 2007 02:56:19 PM |
|
|
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2b7ec3aed38156d6?
<snip>
Still here helping folks by posting on usenet in between seeing
patients :-)
Well, 8 years ago until now is quite a long interval, but it is an
interval.
My usenet posts have not been separated by 8 year intervals :-)
Sophistry and supercilliousness noted.
Truth is simply neither.
You'd make a good Jesuit, you would, Andy!
It remains my choice to not be religious.
Your repetitiveness/verbigeration indicates otherwise.
Not for folks with normal reading comprehension.
Do I need to point out the obvious?
Without the LORD, your needs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
<incoherent babbling snipped>
Incoherent babbling?
Yes.
Oh, yes!
Glad you agree.
the repeated request, written in perfectly
good English - my native tongue for 52 years - that you tell us exactly
where you treat patients.
QED :-)
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly be incoherent and babbling.
We all want to know.
Still the truth, despite your sophistry and cheap insults.
Untrue.
Not everyone wants to know.
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it.
It remains my choice to not debate.
You're the one
trying to pull rank, you're the one claiming to be not just a doctor, but
a consultant.
Not a claim but a fact.
Prove it, or your rank-pulling is futile, and your
"helping" people is very probably contrary to the law.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either prove or
convince.
Here are some helpful questions, which you should be happy to answer in a
direct and unambiguous manner:
What is the name and location of the practice/hospital where you have
lawful permission to treat patients?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
What inspection process is it subject to, and by whom?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
When does its licence expire?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
Can you show us samples of its documentation e.g. brochures, patient
information, weekly cleaning and inspection schedule, policies/procedures
for the sterilization of instruments, infection control policy? If not,
can you at least point us to an up-to-date inspection report for the
practice you work at?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
How many patients have you treated in the last 12 months?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
These are not leading questions, they are your opportunity to establish
your credibility.
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
This is all that those with discerning hearts require.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Burden of proof |
05 Sep 2007 04:58:14 PM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@emorycardiology.com> wrote in
news:1189022179.872478.184430@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com to
alt.atheism:
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2b7ec3aed3815
6d6?
<snip>
Still here helping folks by posting on usenet in between seeing
patients :-)
Well, 8 years ago until now is quite a long interval, but it is an
interval.
My usenet posts have not been separated by 8 year intervals :-)
Sophistry and supercilliousness noted.
Truth is simply neither.
Deliberate misconstruction noted.
You'd make a good Jesuit, you would, Andy!
It remains my choice to not be religious.
Your repetitiveness/verbigeration indicates otherwise.
Not for folks with normal reading comprehension.
Do I need to point out the obvious?
Without the LORD, your needs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
You're good at misconstruing things. It's about all that you're good at.
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to
convict you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
<incoherent babbling snipped>
Incoherent babbling?
Yes.
Oh, yes!
Glad you agree.
Deliberate misconstruction noted.
the repeated request, written in perfectly
good English - my native tongue for 52 years - that you tell us
exactly where you treat patients.
QED :-)
Deliberate misconstruction noted.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly be incoherent and babbling.
You are the only one who doesn't understand the question.
We all want to know.
Still the truth, despite your sophistry and cheap insults.
Untrue.
Not everyone wants to know.
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it.
It remains my choice to not debate.
You're the one
trying to pull rank, you're the one claiming to be not just a doctor,
but a consultant.
Not a claim but a fact.
Prove it, or your rank-pulling is futile, and your
"helping" people is very probably contrary to the law.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform and not to either prove or
convince.
Tough. You just did. Sometimes a refusal to answer is an answer in
itself.
Here are some helpful questions, which you should be happy to answer
in a direct and unambiguous manner:
What is the name and location of the practice/hospital where you have
lawful permission to treat patients?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
And again.
What inspection process is it subject to, and by whom?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
And again.
When does its licence expire?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
And again.
Can you show us samples of its documentation e.g. brochures, patient
information, weekly cleaning and inspection schedule,
policies/procedures for the sterilization of instruments, infection
control policy? If not, can you at least point us to an up-to-date
inspection report for the practice you work at?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
And again.
How many patients have you treated in the last 12 months?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
And again. Sometimes a refusal to answer is an answer in itself.
These are not leading questions, they are your opportunity to
establish your credibility.
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
This is all that those with discerning hearts require.
Do they all have "discerning hearts" at Emory University? Is that why
their hearts all sink at the mention of your name?
BTW, are you ever on the premises at Mableton Parkway? Let me guess,
you're taking the 5th on that one as well. Sometimes a refusal to answer
is an answer in itself.
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Not authentic without this signature.
Not necessarily authentic with it, either.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sanitys Little Helper" |
|
| Title: Re: Please pray for dear convicted neighbor David Silverman. |
06 Sep 2007 04:24:28 AM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <love24@thetruth.com> wrote in
news:1189031124.260342.296790@y42g2000hsy.googlegroups.com to
alt.support.anxiety-panic:
<snip>
Jumping threads and Google accounts is running away.
--
David Silverman C.B.E.
aa #2208
Not authentic without this signature.
Not necessarily authentic with it, either.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Phil Aypee" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of (boring) proof |
06 Sep 2007 02:15:13 AM |
|
|
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of (boring) proof |
06 Sep 2007 06:05:11 PM |
|
|
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:14:13 -0001, phil.see.website@uk.invalid (Phil
Aypee) wrote:
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
Well, that was boring as well as tedious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of (boring) proof |
07 Sep 2007 05:00:21 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:35:11 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:14:13 -0001, phil.see.website@uk.invalid (Phil
Aypee) wrote:
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
Well, that was boring as well as tedious.
Well, all we ever seem to get on this newsgroup is the
same old boring stuff. ID - tedious, atheist are angry -yawn,
atheists religion -snore, quotes from the Bible - is there some
interesting paint drying anywhere? And of course assertion
after assertion after assertion. Yep this tedious nonesense
never ends and these fools have been prattling out this
same superstitious nonesense ever since mankind first emerged
200-150,000 years ago to reach new unabated heights 2000 years
ago when the utimate idiot religion emerged to take the fools crown.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
| User: "Måck©®" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of (boring) proof |
10 Sep 2007 04:55:45 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:00:21 +0100, les_on_usenet
<delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:35:11 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:14:13 -0001, phil.see.website@uk.invalid (Phil
Aypee) wrote:
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
Well, that was boring as well as tedious.
Well, all we ever seem to get on this newsgroup is the
same old boring stuff. ID - tedious, atheist are angry -yawn,
atheists religion -snore, quotes from the Bible - is there some
interesting paint drying anywhere? And of course assertion
after assertion after assertion. Yep this tedious nonesense
never ends and these fools have been prattling out this
same superstitious nonesense ever since mankind first emerged
200-150,000 years ago to reach new unabated heights 2000 years
ago when the utimate idiot religion emerged to take the fools crown.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
what group are you reading from? if you have been flooded by off topic
religious wars with non religious people then you can thank the chung
troll from sci med cardiology pronounced sci med kookiology. He has
been intentionally cross posting his replies to threads that were
never cross posted to begin with in an attempt to troll multiple
newsgroups.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Gray" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of (boring) proof |
07 Sep 2007 07:01:57 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:00:21 +0100, les_on_usenet
<delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:35:11 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:14:13 -0001, phil.see.website@uk.invalid (Phil
Aypee) wrote:
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
Well, that was boring as well as tedious.
Well, all we ever seem to get on this newsgroup is the
same old boring stuff. ID - tedious, atheist are angry -yawn,
atheists religion -snore, quotes from the Bible - is there some
interesting paint drying anywhere? And of course assertion
after assertion after assertion. Yep this tedious nonesense
never ends and these fools have been prattling out this
same superstitious nonesense ever since mankind first emerged
200-150,000 years ago to reach new unabated heights 2000 years
ago when the utimate idiot religion emerged to take the fools crown.
Can I sense some repressed anger there? ;)
.
|
|
|
| User: "les_on_usenet" |
|
| Title: Re: Burden of (boring) proof |
07 Sep 2007 08:08:33 AM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 21:31:57 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 11:00:21 +0100, les_on_usenet
<delete-unread@leswell.freeuk.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 08:35:11 +0930, Michael Gray
<mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
On Thu, 06 Sep 2007 07:14:13 -0001, phil.see.website@uk.invalid (Phil
Aypee) wrote:
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
Well, that was boring as well as tedious.
Well, all we ever seem to get on this newsgroup is the
same old boring stuff. ID - tedious, atheist are angry -yawn,
atheists religion -snore, quotes from the Bible - is there some
interesting paint drying anywhere? And of course assertion
after assertion after assertion. Yep this tedious nonesense
never ends and these fools have been prattling out this
same superstitious nonesense ever since mankind first emerged
200-150,000 years ago to reach new unabated heights 2000 years
ago when the utimate idiot religion emerged to take the fools crown.
Can I sense some repressed anger there? ;)
Only at the stupidity of it all and the harm it has done mankind. I
like to think, believe even that mankind aught to be able to do better
than this.
Les Hellawell
Greetings from
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
|
| Title: Please pray for dear convicted neighbor Michael Gray |
06 Sep 2007 06:19:40 PM |
|
|
convicted neighbor Michael Gray wrote:
phil.see.website@uk.invalid (Phil Aypee) wrote:
Hi,
Sanity's Little Helper wrote - boring stuff arguing with a boring stiff.
Arguing with evangelicals is stupid, even if you are one yourself.
Be argumentative if you wish - but only bores will read you!
Take care,
Phil.
Well, that was boring as well as tedious.
You remain in my prayers:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Archie Leach" |
|
| Title: Re: The inevitability of an influenza pandemic. |
07 Sep 2007 12:51:33 PM |
|
|
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it.
It remains my choice to not debate.
Wow, more Kentucky Fried Chungshit. Chungfuck certainly has a rather
unique definition of "debate".
Either that, or else he's morally rotten, intellectually corrupt, and
spiritually dishonest.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Aratzio" |
|
| Title: Re: The inevitability of an influenza pandemic. |
07 Sep 2007 01:05:22 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:51:33 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, Archie Leach
<archie@no.spam> bloviated:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it.
It remains my choice to not debate.
Wow, more Kentucky Fried Chungshit. Chungfuck certainly has a rather
unique definition of "debate".
Either that, or else he's morally rotten, intellectually corrupt, and
spiritually dishonest.
I thought he was a fuckhead?
--
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
Aratzio - Usenet ruiner #2
.
|
|
|
| User: "Archie Leach" |
|
| Title: Re: The inevitability of an influenza pandemic. |
07 Sep 2007 02:56:41 PM |
|
|
Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
On Fri, 07 Sep 2007 12:51:33 -0500, in alt.usenet.kooks, Archie Leach
<archie@no.spam> bloviated:
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <andrew@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it.
It remains my choice to not debate.
Wow, more Kentucky Fried Chungshit. Chungfuck certainly has a rather
unique definition of "debate".
Either that, or else he's morally rotten, intellectually corrupt, and
spiritually dishonest.
I thought he was a fuckhead?
Name calling only shows that you're absolutely RIGHT in calling Chung
a "Fuckhead".
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Nosterill" |
|
| Title: Re: The inevitability of an influenza pandemic. |
06 Sep 2007 03:46:17 AM |
|
|
On Sep 5, 8:56 pm, "Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<and...@emorycardiology.com> wrote:
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
convicted neighbor David Silverman (satan's Little Helper) wrote:
Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/2b7ec3aed38156d6?
<snip>
Still here helping folks by posting on usenet in between seeing
patients :-)
Well, 8 years ago until now is quite a long interval, but it is an
interval.
My usenet posts have not been separated by 8 year intervals :-)
Sophistry and supercilliousness noted.
Truth is simply neither.
You'd make a good Jesuit, you would, Andy!
It remains my choice to not be religious.
Your repetitiveness/verbigeration indicates otherwise.
Not for folks with normal reading comprehension.
Do I need to point out the obvious?
Without the LORD, your needs are meaningless (Ecclesiastes).
This simply shows that the Holy Spirit is absolutely right to convict
you:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
<incoherent babbling snipped>
Incoherent babbling?
Yes.
Oh, yes!
Glad you agree.
the repeated request, written in perfectly
good English - my native tongue for 52 years - that you tell us exactly
where you treat patients.
QED :-)
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to unwittingly be incoherent and babbling.
We all want to know.
Still the truth, despite your sophistry and cheap insults.
Untrue.
Not everyone wants to know.
Andrew, **you** personalised this debate, live with it.
It remains my choice to not debate.
You're the one
trying to pull rank, you're the one claiming to be not just a doctor, but
a consultant.
Not a claim but a fact.
Prove it, or your rank-pulling is futile, and your
"helping" people is very probably contrary to the law.
GOD's purpose for me here remains to inform
It seems that you are failing your god rather badly then, doesn't it?
Practically every other line in this message is a flat refusal to
inform.
and not to either prove or
convince.
Here are some helpful questions, which you should be happy to answer in a
direct and unambiguous manner:
What is the name and location of the practice/hospital where you have
lawful permission to treat patients?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
What inspection process is it subject to, and by whom?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
When does its licence expire?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
Can you show us samples of its documentation e.g. brochures, patient
information, weekly cleaning and inspection schedule, policies/procedures
for the sterilization of instruments, infection control policy? If not,
can you at least point us to an up-to-date inspection report for the
practice you work at?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
How many patients have you treated in the last 12 months?
If you had a true need to know, you would already know.
These are not leading questions, they are your opportunity to establish
your credibility.
It remains my choice to continue writing truthfully.
This is all that those with discerning hearts require.
Be hungry... be healthy... be hungrier... be blessed:
http://TheWellnessFoundation.com/PressRelease
Prayerfully in Jesus' awesome love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Cardiologist- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
