Wow

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:29:07 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

There is no prescribed course of food with the 2PD-OMER Approach.

And of course everyone else understands that the act of
prescribing in the above phrase refers either to 1) prescribing
limits of kind, or 2) prescribing limits of amount.

-- cary

cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose?

Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
questions or objections raised to his "diet.

What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

I agree that it makes no difference.

Andrew disagrees. Vehementely and repeatedly.


-- cary

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:27:11 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

I'm not certain that the word diet isn't more in tune with control and
direction of specific foodstuffs and their eating. The 2PD is about
volume but I have to admit what Chung has evolved this to, I have not
kept up.

All I know is that when I found out, to my surprise, the volume of food
I was eating, reduced it, I lost weight.

I'm not sure why you found this surprising? Eat less: lose weight.
It's always worked for me.

-- cry

What volume of food did you eat before and after losing wieght?

I don't go by volume; I go by estimated calories.

If I swap a small cheeseburger for a very large salad, I
reduce caolries.

In any event, why are we talking about volume when the, um,
originator of all this insists that weight is the critical
parameter?

-- cary

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.

Suggested or factual?

Once more, suggested or factual?

As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.

-- cary

I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that see above, I
was seeing if you were true to your wording. Suggesting is highly
subjective on part of the one who is listening, factual representation
cannot be missed, it is clear, straightforward.

This leaves me to believe that you maybe incorrect in your listening,
subjectively misguided. This allows you to dance around however if Chung
said it was fact, then we have a discussion. Now, we don't.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.

-- cary

Why don't you ask him?

And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.

He was most unforthcoming.

-- cary

he said nothing, nothing at all?

I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.

--- cary

The link, one of many that you could have found, says little, others say
quite a bit more. The only question that you should have is how Chung
reasoned his model building and theoretical questions. Then you might
have a case for argument however, since you haven't been inclined to
answer as to your scientific or philosophical credentials, you may not
have a lucid argument to proffer.

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:11 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose?

Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
questions or objections raised to his "diet.

What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

I agree that it makes no difference.

Andrew disagrees. Vehementely and repeatedly.

-- cary

So? Let him. Pick your own pimples.

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.

Suggested or factual?

Once more, suggested or factual?

As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.

-- cary

I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that see above,

I claim that Andrew suggested this where, exactly?


In fact, I neither meant nor said that Andy was the one who
suggested this to me, and indeed it was not (that would have
been surprisingly forthcoming on his part, actually)


I was seeing if you were true to your wording. Suggesting is highly
subjective on part of the one who is listening, factual representation
cannot be missed, it is clear, straightforward.

This leaves me to believe that you maybe incorrect in your listening,
subjectively misguided.

And this leaves me to believe that "you maybe incorrect in your
listening".

This allows you to dance around however if Chung
said it was fact, then we have a discussion. Now, we don't.



-- cary

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:31 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:34:40 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

If so, one can only wonder where Dr. Chung obtained all the
requisite information on the state of their health. All of their
healths.

-- cary

Why don't you ask him?

And of course I have -- curious, as you may imagine, how
one person, apparently working alone, could have carried out
what would easily be the largest single medical study
in history.

He was most unforthcoming.

-- cary

he said nothing, nothing at all?

I provided a link for you. Go see for yourself.

--- cary

The link, one of many that you could have found, says little,

It says that I in fact did ask him.

Which was your question.

-- cary

Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article
writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:27:11 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

I'm not certain that the word diet isn't more in tune with control and
direction of specific foodstuffs and their eating. The 2PD is about
volume but I have to admit what Chung has evolved this to, I have not
kept up.

All I know is that when I found out, to my surprise, the volume of food
I was eating, reduced it, I lost weight.

I'm not sure why you found this surprising? Eat less: lose weight.
It's always worked for me.

-- cry

What volume of food did you eat before and after losing wieght?

I don't go by volume; I go by estimated calories.

If I swap a small cheeseburger for a very large salad, I
reduce caolries.

In any event, why are we talking about volume when the, um,
originator of all this insists that weight is the critical
parameter?

The simple fact that Mu and Chung refuse to consider, and for which the
claims surrounding the 2-lb fraud diet have no answer:

Energy out Energy in = Weight loss

But since both cowards have plonked me, they are safe from having to
account for the truth.

--
Supreme Leader of the Brainwashed Followers of Art Deco

"Still suffering from reading comprehension problems, Deco?
The section is clearly attributed to Art Deco, not to you, Deco."
-- Dr. David Tholen

"Who is "David Tholen", Daedalus? Still suffering from
attribution problems?"
-- Dr. David Tholen

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 21:29:37 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

In article writes:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:06:09 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:

Oh, let's just say that it has been suggested that nearly all of the
"participants" in Dr. Chung's study were the children of Israel,
wandering hither and yon (generally more yonly than hitherly)
all those years.

Suggested or factual?

Once more, suggested or factual?

As I've said once already: Chung won't tell.

-- cary

I'm asking you when Chung, as you claim, "suggested" that see above,

Above.

On Apr 16, 5:11 pm, Mu wrote:
On Mon, 16 Apr 2007 20:07:11 +0000 (UTC), Cary Kittrell wrote:
cary, you're being argumentative for what purpose?

Because Andrew always uses this imaginary distinction to
go into willfully disingenuous mode and thus avoid
questions or objections raised to his "diet.

What? Chung has answered a zillion ?? regarding the 2PD. You're picking
nits, it's nonsensical for you to do so. It makes no difference what the
thing is called if in the end, it works. Which it does.

I agree that it makes no difference.

Andrew disagrees. Vehementely and repeatedly.

-- cary

So? Let him. Pick your own pimples.

Wow, real wisdom. Please forward to Chung and take own advice.