![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 78 to 102 of 134. Go back in thread:
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:52:53
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 21:48:12
> (I'm sorry about the anonymous emails. That must hurt a lot. If they're uncivil, you can forward them to Dr. Bob, you know.)When I forwarded e-mails to Bob from a poster here, ones that did bother me, because I felt harassed. Dr. Bob told me he didn't get involved with e-mails.
Which is fine, I can understand Dr. Bob's feelings on that, but I just wanted to clarify.
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 23:14:32
In reply to thanks for replying! More of my thoughts... » Dr. Bob, posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 17:12:01
>
>
> I kind of see certain posters as stone-throwers, as bullies. I wish we could stop them from being so disruptive. I guess I have patience up to a point, then I snap. What's the point, I think to myself, of hoping and wheedling and coaxing and sweet-talking a person who is just not listening?
>
> It also drives me NUTS when other posters act all sweet and kind and understanding towards the 'mean' posters. What is THAT supposed to accomplish, I wonder to myself. Is it a way to try and ingratiate oneself with the bully, hoping to avoid future trauma? Is it a way to try and befriend the bully so as to be the important ONE who understands him/her? Is it a way to be shocking? Is it a way to be different? It is a fascination with power and abuse? --Of course, Dr. Bob, I don't expect you to answer these questions! They're questions I'm thinking "aloud" (atype?).
>Or gee, maybe they just like the person?
Nice is often defined by whose ox is being gored. Mental illness doesn't always present itself in ways that charm, perhaps some can relate to others better, and aren't as bothered by the things others find so offensive.
You can't label someone "Mean" or a Bully and expect everyone else to have the same opinion, and therefore having ulterior motives for being
conversatsional.
I have found lots of things to be mean and cruel that on the surface pass the civility guidelines, but that doesn't mean my feelings aren't valid. Does that mean I think that everyone else should take offense too? Hardly.
Or is it that someone offends lots of people, so somehow there's justification for expecting that they be ostracized by everyone?
Not in my world.
I've even felt harassed by off board e-mails, and people knew about it, I didn't expect everyone to suddenly ostracize the person.I can't understand why, if it's up to Dr. Bob whether or not the person is posting, why it would bother you who speaks to who? Your feelings are your own.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 23:44:22
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:52:53
Hmmm...
I don't care for that much. I mean, I know he can't police them, but...
Well, he's the only one who can do anything at all.
Still, that explains the deputy email thing better.
Guess I've been lucky not to receive that particular rite of passage. I don't think I've gotten any anonymous emails at all.
I too disapprove of them on principle. If someone has something to say to me, I'd prefer they do it under their own posting name.
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 23:58:52
In reply to Re:Another idea » gabbii, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 23:44:22
> I too disapprove of them on principle. If someone has something to say to me, I'd prefer they do it under their own posting name.
Yes, that's what makes them not hurtful to me.
I've always thought anonymous notes (whether left by co-workers, or e-mail, or whatever the situation) are highly indicitive of the character of the person who sends them.
And that alone is enough to make me disregard what they may think of me, or even take it as a compliment.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2005, at 0:16:37
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 21:48:12
> Shrug. I guess it's one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree about.
I can't begin to even try and say how I feel when people say that...
I thought a string of letters might do it...
But nope, I just can't seem to capture it.NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKK.
Did that help?
Helped me a little ;-)> If they're uncivil, you can forward them to Dr. Bob, you know.
Yeah. But they are emails so what are you going to do? I'm not all that bothered actually. I agree that the anonymous thing sucks. But aside from that... If you can't say anything nice. I'd prefer people to just ignore me if they have a problem with me really.
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:32:55
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2005, at 0:16:37
Agree to disagree?
I'm rather fond of it.
Because people hardly ever change their minds, and trying to get them to change their minds just causes bad feelings.
So why not just respect that each person has the right to believe what they choose to believe. Especially in something as subjective as this.
I mean, there's something to be said on each side. I weight one more strongly than the other, you weight the other more strongly.
It's not even like gated communities or anything.
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:36:13
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:51:00
Anonymous emails? How is that possible? Aren't all emails supposed to be tagged with our names & ID's and all that?
I'm sorry you guys are getting or have received hurtful anonymous emails. That's awful! I have not received anything like that...you should def. forward it to Dr. Bob. He may be able to extricate some of the tagging data to find who it's from.
JenStar
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:38:21
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:32:55
To me anyway.
I shouldn't assume that you don't have a strong moral stance about the topic.
But I don't really.
I can see why you think it's best to give people multiple chances. I don't disagree exactly, but I sort of think that after the first few chances, future ones ought to be earned. With the three R's. Regret, taking Responsibility, and attempting to make Repairs.
But I don't think you have to agree with me. And I don't feel all that strongly about it to want to argue the point.
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:58:51
In reply to Re: thanks for replying! More of my thoughts... » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 23:14:32
gabbii,
are you saying that you like so? If this is true, I'd be interested to see your reasoning. If I've overlooked something obvious, please point it out so that I can reconsider. As a reference point, here are a few tidbits from his/her recent posts. These are the ones that upset me and other posters. Did you not find these posts upsetting? Do you like these posts and how they made other people feel?I explained why these posts upset me, so I won't do it again. Suffice to say -- they did upset me.
-- everything below is cut & pasted from so's recent posts ---
"Hsiung is a self-professed supporter of Al Queda -- as demonstrated by his favoritism toward Al Queda, a group organized by psychiatrists, sanctioning people for calling Al Queda suicide recruiters "monsterous" but allowing people to call those "creepy" who expose Al Queda's psuedoscientific leadership.""The string of suicidal deaths among former guests of this site is evidence of his covert desire to see others' lives crumble, while he revels in the wealth and power afforded those who support chemical manufacturers"
"Yours are more than a little wet, crushed out. They are so wet with excited sick sexual glee you can't help but boast about it in public."
"You need to think about the harm this pseudodoctor has done to you and find someone who will lead you on recovery before the gleeful mood swings he and his bag of tricks causes lead you to suicide. "
"Exactly. you have an inablity to distinguish right from wrong, which is evidence that you might be criminally insance."
"Maybe you need to attend a few lynchings, or watch a few people recover from jail house abuse, Crushed out, so you will understand what you are doing when you buddy up to a sick authority then beg them to use their illegitimate power to harm people. "
"Others, like GG, crushed out, SarahT, and a couple dozen more exhibit persistant and increasing tendencies to attack others, all the while using your arbitrary and capricious administration to protect their spreading pathology as it expresses in your forum.
I could as easily describe this psychiatrist's manipulative behavior as a disorder, and clearly he has created a situation where he has free reign to externalize his mental disease, but i think it is more productive to identify his behavior for what it is -- malicious self-centered bigotry.
""I am certain he has the capacity to recognize right from wrong but long ago succeeded in silencing his conscience in favor of of the privilage of power over others. "
"But there is nothing beyond the sad kissy-face suck-up of his loyal minion/victims to offer evidence of any efficacy of this approach"
"Robert Hsiung has demonstrated a persistant arrogance in administration of this site that reveals his lack of qualification to practice any form of medicine, much less medicine affecting the mind."
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 1:01:09
In reply to these posts didn't upset you at all? » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:58:51
I'm upset right now and I'm starting to post things that I may regret later. I'm going to take a little break.
take care!
JenStar
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 1:35:16
In reply to these posts didn't upset you at all? » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:58:51
> gabbii,
>I hadn't realized we were talking about So in particular, I've seen other times where people (other than I) have been criticized for speaking to someone who others dislike.
As for the posts, I saw few posts of So's
That weren't responded to or more likely posts initiated to him that weren't worded in kind or worse by other posters.
Often the topic he broached wasn't addressed, the critique could be his posting style, the way he used language, or really anything else available, and *that* I found offensive.
The reaction to what he said, bothered me as much if not more than anything said by him.
I don't believe that's ever justified. If you don't like someone and can't be direct about it.
Just don't post to them.In one situation, I did indeed say something, where I saw something unprovoked. I will not stay silent when I see someone I care about being treated unfairly and I haven't in this case either.
I don't need to explain whether or not I *like* so, or reason it to anyone.What I'm saying, as I said before, is that I've often been offended by things said on the board,
but don't need to ask others to defend their reasons for not disliking the poster in question.
People who post more regularly on the board have said similar things about Dr. Bob, I don't think it's good for the board in that case either, but they've certainly not been spoken to the way he was. Dr. Bob obviously saw beyond that to other qualities as well.
I will say, that I appreciate much of what he said in individual posts, he's extremely intelligent.
He posted a song for Deneb, helped another poster with her cat and electrical troubles,
my interaction with him was always extremely interesting and very "civil, because I was interested in what was being said, not who was saying it, that was my entire motive for being "sweet" I was interested..
People were disrupted, he got blocked, fair enough, I'm not giving the "okay" to the upset it caused.
I've seen people forgive those who murdered their children, and those around them say it's beautiful, but those same people can't forgive a waiter who's having a bad day until they see Oprah raving about the Dalai Lama or something.
It's not explainable to those who don't understand it, it's not something I expect everyone to do, certainly I'm accustomed to people attributing ulterior motives to something very simple, sometimes those it's hardest to love are those that need it the most, and sometimes that feeling comes very easily and I'm not going to ignore it because of popular opinion. (I'm not speaking specifically of So here)
It's not better it's different.like so? If this is true, I'd be interested to see your reasoning. If I've overlooked something obvious, please point it out so that I can reconsider. As a reference point, here are a few tidbits from his/her recent posts. These are the ones that upset me and other posters. Did you not find these posts upsetting? Do you like these posts and how they made other people feel?
>
> I explained why these posts upset me, so I won't do it again. Suffice to say -- they did upset me.
>
> -- everything below is cut & pasted from so's recent posts ---
>
>
> "Hsiung is a self-professed supporter of Al Queda -- as demonstrated by his favoritism toward Al Queda, a group organized by psychiatrists, sanctioning people for calling Al Queda suicide recruiters "monsterous" but allowing people to call those "creepy" who expose Al Queda's psuedoscientific leadership."
>
> "The string of suicidal deaths among former guests of this site is evidence of his covert desire to see others' lives crumble, while he revels in the wealth and power afforded those who support chemical manufacturers"
>
> "Yours are more than a little wet, crushed out. They are so wet with excited sick sexual glee you can't help but boast about it in public."
>
> "You need to think about the harm this pseudodoctor has done to you and find someone who will lead you on recovery before the gleeful mood swings he and his bag of tricks causes lead you to suicide. "
>
> "Exactly. you have an inablity to distinguish right from wrong, which is evidence that you might be criminally insance."
>
> "Maybe you need to attend a few lynchings, or watch a few people recover from jail house abuse, Crushed out, so you will understand what you are doing when you buddy up to a sick authority then beg them to use their illegitimate power to harm people. "
>
> "Others, like GG, crushed out, SarahT, and a couple dozen more exhibit persistant and increasing tendencies to attack others, all the while using your arbitrary and capricious administration to protect their spreading pathology as it expresses in your forum.
>
> I could as easily describe this psychiatrist's manipulative behavior as a disorder, and clearly he has created a situation where he has free reign to externalize his mental disease, but i think it is more productive to identify his behavior for what it is -- malicious self-centered bigotry.
> "
>
> "I am certain he has the capacity to recognize right from wrong but long ago succeeded in silencing his conscience in favor of of the privilage of power over others. "
>
> "But there is nothing beyond the sad kissy-face suck-up of his loyal minion/victims to offer evidence of any efficacy of this approach"
>
> "Robert Hsiung has demonstrated a persistant arrogance in administration of this site that reveals his lack of qualification to practice any form of medicine, much less medicine affecting the mind."
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 2:34:48
In reply to Re: these posts didn't upset you at all? » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 1:35:16
Posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2005, at 3:59:59
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:32:55
> Agree to disagree?
> I'm rather fond of it.Yes. I know :-)
> Because people hardly ever change their minds, and trying to get them to change their minds just causes bad feelings.Yup. So... Maybe it shouldn't be about trying to get someone to change their mind. Maybe it should be more about coming to a clearer understanding of all the points that are relevant to the issue.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:22:04
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 17:58:59
I'm not talking about not giving second/third chances. I think people *should* get second/third chances.
I'm talking about people registering under different names to get past a block. Or waiting a while and coming back under a different name hoping the PBC/block cycle will start over.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:24:12
In reply to I don't want to register with a perm. email » AuntieMel, posted by pinkeye on July 27, 2005, at 21:02:28
What if the hotmail/yahoo account could be used for babblemail and communication and the perm. was used *only* for registration?
Or if an exception could be made if you could email Dr. Bob the perm. address?
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 8:35:51
In reply to Re: I don't want to register with a perm. email » pinkeye, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:24:12
In the past, Dr. Bob has suggested pay-for-Babble. More for this reason than for the money involved, I think. Giving credit card info is pretty identifying.
But it met with a *lot* of opposition.
Posted by pinkeye on July 28, 2005, at 13:44:06
In reply to Re: I don't want to register with a perm. email » AuntieMel, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 8:35:51
Yep - paying would be very difficult for people like me.. it is not so much the money, but that I can't give credit card registration because I don't want my husband to go through the bills and discover it.
SAme reason why I don't want to register with a permanent email addresss.. too difficult to protect anonymity
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 14:16:06
In reply to Re: these posts didn't upset you at all? » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 1:35:16
gabbii,
it wasn't my intent to start a battle with you, to upset you, or to put you on the defensive. I'm sorry if my post made you feel that you were under attack. I didn't mean to do that.What I DID want to do was vent, share my feelings, and voice my frustration and confusion about the way things happen here on the boards sometimes. I'm not saying you (or anyone else) HAS to justify why they like another poster. In the case of so, I genuinely found it very hard to understand, that's all. I still do, but I listened to your explanation and understand that you do see the world and people differently than I do. And I hope to stop arguing about this, so I won't put any most posts here about my frustration and confusion. I'm done! :)
I'd like to get back to being friends. :)
How about we agree to disagree on some topics(even though I know that phrase is overused!) and move on from here?
JenStar
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 14:30:26
In reply to olive branch? » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 14:16:06
> gabbii,
> it wasn't my intent to start a battle with you, to upset you, or to put you on the defensive. I'm sorry if my post made you feel that you were under attack. I didn't mean to do that.
>
Absolutely! Actually (this is the second time this has happened) I came here specifically to say "Jen why would you want to stop yourself from saying something you'd regret, that's what makes Babble such an adventure? " : )I wasn't angry about your feelings in the least, I truly was not, and had I felt the reactions weren't understandable (if not ideal) I would have said what I'd posted to you without having been asked.
I was miffed about it being hinted that I or others had ulterior motives because that I've been accused of before, when it's quite apparent from my posts overall that I never side with someone simply because they are on the "outside" and I certainly never feel any pressure inside or out to be 'sweet'' to anyone, so if I am, it's just me doing what I feel like doing..Anyway, of course we can agree to disagree.
Though it's not really a disagreement, just different people get our hackles up, that's all.
who can explain why?Thanks Jen
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 15:08:28
In reply to Re: olive branch? » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 14:30:26
hi gabbii,
thanks! I think I offered those possible motives in my post because they are things *I* might do, or have done in real life -- they're motives I can ascribe to myself (whether I'm proud of it or not) in various situations in my past.Now that I've calmed down, I can see there are obviously many other motives -- kindness, desire to understand, giving a second chance, trying to connect, etc. Sometimes when I'm in a p***y mood I focus on the negative and forget about the positive stuff. But in general I really WANT and LIKE to be positive...so I'll try to stay this way! :)
Anyway, you're right, it's hard to understand why we do things...I guess that's the fun of analysis and self-analysis, right?
thanks for understanding! :)
JenStar
Posted by NikkiT2 on July 28, 2005, at 17:29:09
In reply to Re: I don't want to register with a perm. email » pinkeye, posted by AuntieMel on July 28, 2005, at 8:24:12
Not everyone even has a "permanent" email address..
Not *all* ISP's offer one, and as I have no need, or desire for one, I opted out of that with my ISP.. I own my own domain, but have th eemails forwarded to an internet email account (GMail)..
*shrugs*
And seeing as most ISP's here in the UK tat offer email addresses offer multiple ones, I dont' see how this will really be much help..
Nikki x
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 17:58:59
> notification on the Admin board of posting under a new name... I sort of think ought to be formal notification in the subject line, not just mentioned in a post somewhere.
That's a good idea, thanks.
> How about in times like this, in the future, if you address the board, or respond to distressed posters, reassuring them that you are ok, the board is in no danger, and that you would prefer to handle things yourself. Or something validating how frustrating it is to feel (xxx - insert appropriate feeling), but telling them something reassuring or warning or whatever.
>
> Or maybe to remind people that certain feelings can be contained in different ways. For example, if someone feels like the mouse tied to the end of those sticks they sell in toy stores, one way to regain control is to refuse to play and walk away. Or if someone is feeling protective, one way to respond is to support the person they feel protective of, without actually mentioning anyone else or the behavior of anyone else.> Chuckle.
>
> I'll bet you think I'm asking you to expand your role here at Babble, by calling you a leader as well as an administrator or moderator.
>
> Dinah> I agree that it is hard when people post things like that about the boards. This has happened before though... Posters managed to reassure each other that things were okay. I think we should have faith that things are okay. Especially those of us who have been here for a while.
>
> alexandra_kSometimes I think the less I do, the better. I like the idea of posters reassuring, validating, and reminding each other...
--
> I don't mind co-existing with people who have different outlooks and beliefs than I do
>
> But I DO mind co-existing with people who seem unwilling to debate in a logical fashion, or who seem to enjoy stirring up trouble simply for the sake of the trouble, or with people who are just jerks.I agree, the latter can be more of a challenge...
> Imagine a kid on the playground who is tossing stones at another kid... I could easily walk away, unharmed. But something about the situation impels me to do something and stop the stone-throwing.
>
> JenStarYes, it's a fraught situation. First, I think it's OK to walk away. "Diffusion of responsibility" can be an advantage of groups. Are there other options, too? Given that (1) only deputies and I can really stop them and (2) two wrongs don't make a right?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 29, 2005, at 4:45:31
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
Well, it's your call of course. But reassurances from other posters can seem more like comaraderie than actual reassurance, you know. Sometimes the mere reminder there is a strong hand on the tiller (whatever on earth that means) from the leader is more reassurance than any those hunkered down together can give.
Also...
I'm sure you don't mean it to be, but both your "Best wishes" see post to Ron above, and your "Two wrongs don't make a right" can sound a bit dismissive to those whose emotions may be running a bit high. And I think there are those here, myself included, who will never be persuaded that walking away and leaving others to take care of the wounded is ok because the responsibility is diffused and they don't have to.
How about people look to gather examples of situations where support is given without escalation of the drama triangle, or without making a second wrong. I'll bet lots of people can remember their own favorite example of being impressed by someone managing to do that.
Then you can look at them all and come up with a list of suggestions or even just a list of links, that you can offer to people for guidance when they don't wish to ignore someone feeling hurt, but do wish to intervene in a "legal" way if possible.
I understand your desire to do as little as possible, and I think your wish to remain as little a part of what goes on here other than as an administrator is both... Well, ok. I was going to validate a bit here, but honestly I think it's sort of a loss to us Babblers and maybe to you as well. But I do understand it as well.
But even so, a little validation goes a long way, Dr. Bob, if other posters are anything like me.
By the way. Regarding Best wishes. I wonder if I am alone in thinking that Best wishes sounds like "Don't let the door hit you on the rear as you exit."
Posted by alexandra_k on July 29, 2005, at 19:04:01
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
> Sometimes I think the less I do, the better.
Why?
Do you mean in some kinds of situations?
Posted by JenStar on July 29, 2005, at 20:03:25
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by Dr. Bob on July 29, 2005, at 1:06:38
Dr. Bob & all...hmmmm....other options....
I think one other option is to stay calm and collected at all times, refuse to get rattled, and firmly but civily keep telling the 'suspected troublemaker' that I feel XXX when I read YYY. But in the case of certain posters, such responses seem to have extremely little effect. It's like putting a band-aid on cancer! --- in the short term, anyway. Long term I think that approach can work, because the troubled person sees a certain stability and sees that there is only one way to communicate with you/me/etc, and that is in a civil way.
However, I still do believe that some posters get a kick out of using words to the brink of civility, and know the buttons to push to rile people up, and do it on purpose. I can't prove that, but I think I know it when I see it. In that case...ignoring is probably the best option, because that person doesn't want to reason, and wants to irritate others. But my buttons can be pretty pushable...
I think that as a group we fall prey to the 'prisoner's dilemma' when confronted with an angry trouble-making poster. To achieve the best possible outcome for the group, we should ALL ignore the poster. ALL of us, all the time. In that case, a strong silent message would be sent, and the poster would quickly change (or go away) of his/her own accord. But each of us does not believe or that others will do this, and desires to respond personally (because this is the second best option and gives immense immediate satisfaction, although it may bring long term trouble).
And then there are dozens of conflicting messages and the troubled poster does not receive a consistent message that their posts should change.
Of course, that above scenario is ldealized to assumed that everyone DOES actually want to the poster to change! I find that is really quite rare IBL ("In Babble Life.") I've found that there are people who are quite compassionate, or know something about the person that makes them more sympathetic, or are curious, or are genuinely interested -- and are not interested in making someone change or go away. So there is no formal "group think" that compels the person to act a certain way, at least not in the short term.
I think YOUR gentle method of nudging people to civility works like a tugboat pulling a barge. At first it seems to be doing nothing, but over time the efforts pay off and the huge barge moves in the right direction. I guess I just like to be 1,000 speed power boats instead of a barge! (Even if that doesn't always work!) But in general I agree with your method. I just wish it worked faster.
Hmmmmm.
I also recognize that my example of throwing stones was an imperfect analogy, because stones IRL is more damaging and potentially harmful than posts HERE. But the spirit still moves me the same way!
JenStar
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.