![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 120 to 144 of 193. Go back in thread:
Posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 23:49:58
In reply to Re: ethics » psych chat, posted by 10derHeart on October 30, 2009, at 21:51:26
I was only half serious 10der. lol. But to answer your question seriously, I would change my user name, go to the newbie forum-where each newbie post is tweeted - and send the question out. That's how it would appear on Dr. Bob's page.
It wouldn't be hypocritical, as I've been saying all along, it's one thing if an individual wants to tweet their comments to Dr. Bob's followers - and another to have a doctor or another individual take your post and redistribute it - especially without your knowledge.
No, I don't have a twitter account, and I couldn't assure Dr. Bob's followers would read it either way. And it would be a very biased sample, as the questions would only be answered by those who use twitter regularly. It is a silly idea.
I'm not sure if I answered your questions. I have been writing here on Admin a lot because since those icons appeared and things started being tweeted, I stopped posting personal things about myself shortly after getting in a couple of medication questions; so, instead of posting comments that are personal, I starting using this board all the time. lol
It turns out it led me to think in terms of mental health ethics for a population rather than my own problems.
Posted by seldomseen on October 31, 2009, at 6:38:34
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
I think that would be a great alternative to have an "opt out" as part of our registration.
Would this opt out be applied to our older posts, or just the ones subsequent to the opt out?
Seldom.
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 10:13:53
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
Let me make sure I understand this.
Poster Y doesn't mind the social network thing and doesn't plan to opt out.
Poster N does mind and wishes to opt out. Poster N registers to indicate this.
When Poster N goes to Poster N's own posts, I'm assuming Poster N will not see icons. When Poster N goes to Poster Y's posts, will Poster N find functional icons?
When Poster Y goes to Poster Y's own posts, I'm assuming Poster Y will see the icons and be able to click on them. When Poster Y goes to Poster N's posts, will Poster Y find functional icons at the bottom of Poster N's posts?
Poster L isn't registered but reads the board. Will Poster L find functioning icons at the bottom of Poster N's posts?
In other words, is this option one that applies to the reader of the posts or the poster of the posts?
If it applies to the poster of the posts, it may be an adequate solution for me, although of course, any other post on the thread, including ones that quote the opting out poster, could be linked.
Or at least it would have been if you'd have responded when people first asked you for a compromise, or asked what we thought before you put in the icons.
At this point, I'm not sure. I'm feeling some pretty negative feelings about those who have been... well those who remind me of my middle school peers - using that term very loosely. I feel a bit Babble averse at the moment.
Plus... Dr. Bob, my first thought on seeing this, before even I thought it through was "Until next time...."
This happens over and over and over again. And worse, it *just* happened and over the same topic. It is hard for me to accept that you would do this again about this topic when the whole opt out compromise was so recently reached. That is part of what made this so shocking and disappointing for me. I can only imagine what those who had opted out felt about it. You basically made that list useless when doing this, which indicated to me a lot about how you felt about posters.
I know it's your board, and that you have ideas about what you want for it. But if it was *just* your board, all you would have would be a lot of server space and bandwidth. The board is yours by virtue of ownership. But the board is the posters' by virtue of their own contributions, their own investment. Like a partnership where one person contributes capital and service, and others contribute no financial capital but do contribute their time and their services and their talents.
I always say this is your board and I mean it. It's your board and you're the one who is associated with it, and it reflects your values. But I always meant that with regard to what content you will or will not allow. I didn't really mean it was yours with regard to the contributions of others. To me, there ought to be some consideration for the contributions of your not so silent "partners" in the creation and maintenance of Babble.
Right now there's this whole distressing dynamic going on. You have an idea. You see Babble as yours, and see no reason to consult with Babblers. You present the idea as a done deal. Babblers get upset and leave in droves. Babblers feel hurt and betrayed and angry. You may well feel resentful, because they are being obstructive to your purposes. Even after a compromise is reached, hurt lingers on each side. Like in a bad marriage. Or at least that's how it seems to me. I could be wrong.
Until this dynamic changes, this would just be yet another time this scenario plays out.
This shouldn't be a power struggle. I wish that I could wave a magic wand and have you and Babblers work together to reach everyone's goals. When you get excited about a new idea, or make a decision about what to do next, you could come to Admin and say "I'd like to try something out, and here's the goal I'd like to achieve. Here's my thoughts on how to achieve it. Do you guys have any ideas?" Babblers would respond in such a way that made clear their objections to what you have planned perhaps, but also try to brainstorm on other ways to meet your goal. A compromise would be made at *that* point.
For example if you'd have said "When I started Babble, it was at the forefront of internet exploration. I'd like to see Babble keep exploring new ways of reaching people who are in need of support and education on mental health topics. My idea is to put social networking icons at the bottom of each post, so that Babble could help others in the same way it helped you." After the first shock, Babblers could answer with your goals and hopes in mind and offer compromises that would allow this to be a win win, instead of the lose lose it appears to be at this point.
And of course you would recognize that while posters may indeed be afraid of, or reluctant to, change, not all their objections can be written off to this. Babblers have an investment in their community and in their own private thoughts expressed on this board. They in many cases may have a better idea how things will work, or not work, on board. And frankly, whether the anxieties of others are or are not accurate, I don't think they ought to be so cavalierly dismissed with a standard phrase. You could instead make the choice to explain further how you see this working, other cases where this has worked, etc.
I'm weary of the whole cycle. While I think this is a reasonable compromise (as long as it doesn't just apply to whether or not you *see* the icons), as long as your attitude towards Babblers remains the same, this will be just one in a long stream of these experiences.
You're a psychiatrist. Perhaps you have received some training in marriage therapy. What would you suggest to a couple who came in with this kind of relationship?
God knows, and I think you know too, how much I'd like to be able to accept this and return. But I fear it would just be until next time.
Everyone knows how I feel about linking and tweeting my posts contrary to my wishes. I suppose people will respond to that in keeping with their own character.
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 10:51:06
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on October 30, 2009, at 11:54:31
> > perhaps if he respected our concerns, he could allow the option to opt IN for the tweet/facebook icons at registration (or when updating registration). Those who agree to it will have the icons on their posts; those opposed/concerned for their privacy or safety, could choose to not have the icons at the bottom of our posts.
> >
> > Why have a registration/logon if you can't change any other settings except "babblemail"?
>
> Hmm, that should be possible. It could be another setting, and the server could check it to decide whether to display the buttons. I'd keep it opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list (which wouldn't be needed anymore). Would that be an acceptable compromise?
>
> Thanks for proposing an alternative!
>
> Bob~ ~ YESSS Sounds very good.
So just to verify - would this mean that the 'default' would be 'no Facebook' & people would have to request somehow that the buttons be at the bottom of their posts?
Rather than wait for a reply & I haven't even read the rest of this thread Dr. Bob - but I am asking puleeeez would you change this as soon as is humanly possible?
I would feel SO much better.
So would this mean that the only posts with the buttons would be ones where people had requsted it? And would the buttons be removed from all other people's posts including Archives?
Anxiously awaiting your reply.
:-) Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:02:01
In reply to this is from thread over on psychology-Bob, posted by muffled on October 30, 2009, at 14:54:18
> **This is redirected from psycholgy thread:
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20091022/msgs/923496.html
>
> > > Somehow the Twittering/Facebooking thing just feels more voyeuristic or something. Before at least we knew people who found us had actually found us because they were searching for people with common issues.
> > >
> > > TherapyGirl> * I think TG makes a valid point(HI!!! TG!!!)
> Quality vs quantity....
> etc.
> Bob, bigger is NOT always better.
> We had a pretty tight group who we got to know and come to trust. We knew who each other was, there was sameness.
> Having hordes descend into a group is NOT useful. Its TOO much. Would you consider having group therapy groups of a hundred people??? NO, the intimacy factor would be gone. There would not be enuf time to adress and include all the people. People would invariebly feel(legitimately) left out.
> So if you have hordes of people, we can never get to know them all. This forum has lost what made it so extra special. Made it a COMMUNITY. Now its going to just be a busy marketplace. You are not going to get the same type of content. You are not going to get the depth that was here.
> > > Muffled~ ~ I agree with all the above.
> And I welcome new perspectives and energy. Does anybody else?
~ ~ I do, and I also agree with the above in this. That people specifically looking for a site like this from a need rather than from curiosity after reading a Facebooked or Tweeted post - Those people are the new people who I'd be glad to see arrive here.
> > Are all of you opposed to new "customers"? (Reasonable people can disagree.)
~ ~ Nope - as per above. I think that a large influx of new members over a short period of time isn't ideal. Who knows if that's what would result from Facebooking/Twittering.
> I was always happy to welcome newbies that stumbled upon babble, and perhaps lurked awhile, then came and joined in. There was a natural ebb and flow, but slow and steady growth it seemed.
~ ~ Ditto
> *You have made it too easy. I feel on display. I am not comfortable here.~ ~ That's sort of how I've been feeling also.
Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:06:31
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by cactus on October 30, 2009, at 19:27:29
> This would be acceptable for me, as long as people who respond or click on the twittered posts can't see us and our replies at all, while accessing a post from twitter or facebook, if they join pbabble then fine. This is for people who have opted out, but I think it should be for everyone here.
>
> 1. Don't show our follow up posts on twittered/facebook links which then send our posts off this site.
>
> 2 Don't make us appear on the related thread once it's clicked on. Can you make us invisible to these threads or even stop the thread showing up ? I personally don't like aspect at all.
>
> If so I would be happy with this.
>
> Can you do this Dr. Bob?
>
> Cactus~ ~ I agree & to me, this is an extremely important aspect.
If people join they can see all.
If NOT - they can't - pretty simple & straightforward.Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:08:31
In reply to Re: Yes! » psych chat, posted by BayLeaf on October 30, 2009, at 20:38:32
> This is imo like the roses offered after the black eye.
>
> How many times have we seen this this behavior tolerated? Then he caves a bit, and those involved get all excited, egos inflated briefly, (he's good at that)....then the next time happens.
>
> It's an old pattern. Seriously. It's the cycle of abuse at an MD/PhD level.
>
> It took a threat to his livihood before he backed down at all. It wasn't empathy, or a moment of clarity.
>
> bay~ ~ But whatever it was or wasn't BayLeaf, I feel really relieved to think that this awful situation regarding our privacy looks like it's going to be changed.
:-) Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:09:50
In reply to ethics » Toph, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 21:27:14
~ ~ Good points below, I think. K
> I can relate to what DocJohn said. My concern extends way beyond this forum. Dr. Bob consults to many organizations and professionals, and teaches others about mental health and the internet. He writes papers to journals of online mental health, and helps create ethics governing the practices of online health care, and may even be advising policymakers.
>
> While he is helping us through his research and career endeavors by providing us with this forum, the lack of safety/security and lack of respect for the privacy needs of people with mental health issues greatly concerns me considering his involvement and influence in this field.
>
> It seems contradictory. I think someone with prominence in the sector of the field he is in should have the utmost concern for patients of the mental health community. This aspect seems omitted while he carries out his career endeavors.
>
> Thanks for the example of another mental health professional's opinion. Maybe we should twitter ethics questions to Dr. Bob's twitter followers to hear responses from others in the mental health field?
>
> Tweet: Is it ethical for a psychiatrist to take personal comments written by mental health patients from the forum he administers and tweet them? Without the writer knowing? With consent? Without consent?
>
>
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:12:47
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by seldomseen on October 31, 2009, at 6:38:34
> I think that would be a great alternative to have an "opt out" as part of our registration.
>
> Would this opt out be applied to our older posts, or just the ones subsequent to the opt out?
>
> Seldom.~ ~ What I like is that Opt Out would be the default setting & one would have to Opt In in order to have the buttons at the bottom of their posts.
Kath
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 11:24:07
In reply to I agree with Cactus - ) Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:06:31
IMHO, you said it well.
Thank you.
Its sort of awful to be standing back and seeing people respond as I once did.
Ever hopeful....
Your right, this is all just a repeat, yet again, of events in the past.
This is a PATTERN that has repeated itself, not only once or twice, but MANY times.
I am not talking about buttons. As Dinah said, I am more concerned with the well described behaviour of Bob.
I can't live w/it. I am certainly not willing to risk any more self disclosure with one who seems to have very little understanding of what we are saying re: privacy. YES the 'net is a crazy open place, but why make it worse?
I had never thot of the google thing B4...a board w/o that would be nice.
Anyhow I may respond to that on social.
I have to step back from this.
I still read babble, cuz at one time it meant so much to me.
But I know I can never post anything personal here.
I hope everyone is OK, and will take what Dinah has said into careful consideration....before you invest too much of yourself here.
I have nothing personally against Bob as a person, but I am afraid I am not at all happy w/him as a site administrator.
I was going to say g'head and tweet this post.....but then I thot.....:-( :-( then that gets my name potentially all over, and the neverending past archives hanging ovewr me :-( I do not regret my Babble friends, but I regret Babble :-(
I am going to try and be much more careful in future. Nothing is 100% safe, but there's goto be better than this over advertised place.
Take care,
Ones
Posted by BayLeaf on October 31, 2009, at 11:53:52
In reply to Re: Yes! » BayLeaf, posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:08:31
you didn't get my point....so what if this little twitter fix occurs? he'll just do something else next moth or the month after that.
this has gone on for ages. you've been around. you've seen it. it's a cycle. over and over as dinah has pointed out. he shows no sign of changing or wanting to change.
i'm not sure why we've put energy into trying for so long. i guess because posters love each other and want a place to be together. I like the idea of finding a new place to be together.
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 12:04:13
In reply to Re: Yes! » Kath, posted by BayLeaf on October 31, 2009, at 11:53:52
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20090930/msgs/923408.html
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 13:30:00
In reply to Re: Yes! » Kath, posted by BayLeaf on October 31, 2009, at 11:53:52
> you didn't get my point....so what if this little twitter fix occurs? he'll just do something else next moth or the month after that.
~ ~ Sorry. I knew you meant that but I'm so flippin' freaked out about this twitter thing that I guess that's up-front bigtime for me & I am focussed on that.
> this has gone on for ages. you've been around. you've seen it. it's a cycle. over and over as dinah has pointed out. he shows no sign of changing or wanting to change.~ ~ Yeah. It sure does keep happening over & over about one thing or another. I'd like to see a Whole lot more of what seems like respect shown to us all.
> i'm not sure why we've put energy into trying for so long. i guess because posters love each other and want a place to be together. I like the idea of finding a new place to be together.
~ ~ The one years ago sure worked well.
hugs, Kath
Posted by psych chat on October 31, 2009, at 13:48:46
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 10:13:53
Dinah-The whole thread (started by someone who opted out) would have to be icon-link proof. And a person who opts out could choose not to post on any thread with the stupid icons. Which in effect wouldn't promote supporting others.
Barely anyone wants this. You are right - without us, it would not and could not be "Dr. Bob's site".
This whole thing is ridiculous. He should just get rid of the whole damn idea and just consider this a failed experiment.
Collecting ideas from both Dr. Bob and the members who comprise this site is an excellent idea, and the only one that makes any sense.
Posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 14:02:18
In reply to Members' Ideas and Failed Experiment » Dinah, posted by psych chat on October 31, 2009, at 13:48:46
> Collecting ideas from both Dr. Bob and the members who comprise this site is an excellent idea, and the only one that makes any sense.
*Bob has seemingly done this in the past too.
We had amazing discussions...
....then he goes ahead and does what he wants to, regardless of whats been said.
I can only hope you would be successful in helping Bob, but Bob is Bob, and though I and others honestly made huge efforts with him, to try and help him see where we were comming from, it made little difference.
He just appears not to get it, and I don't think he can. It is beyond him. Just like anybody in this world, there is some stuff people will never understand.
I don't think he is intentionally being obtuse, which is why people get hooked into trying to work with him, but it just hasn't worked in the past, as I say again, we TRIED. Many times. Many of us.Try to keep a distance....
You seem real nice, I hate to see you caught up.
Take care,
M
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 14:09:28
In reply to Members' Ideas and Failed Experiment » Dinah, posted by psych chat on October 31, 2009, at 13:48:46
> Dinah-The whole thread (started by someone who opted out) would have to be icon-link proof. And a person who opts out could choose not to post on any thread with the stupid icons. Which in effect wouldn't promote supporting others.
~ ~ Well then forget it!!
I think 'Failed Experiment' is the only appropriate thing then.
Kath
Posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 14:11:29
In reply to A new site is being considered... » BayLeaf, posted by muffled on October 31, 2009, at 12:04:13
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20090930/msgs/923408.html
~ ~ I just looked into it a bit & it looks pretty easy. Probably the hardest part in setting up the actual site is choosing a name that hasn't already been taken. On the site I went to it's a 3-step process. I went through the first 2 steps just to check it out. I tried using "OurSafePlace" & that name was already taken.
Kath
Posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 16:57:40
In reply to Re: sickening » 10derHeart, posted by psych chat on October 30, 2009, at 10:04:15
I teared right up when I read your post. I felt really *heard* and understood.
Bullying is such a huge issue for me that I can't be in a place where bullying is tolerated, much less enabled. Dr. Bob knows that, or at least he did know it, perhaps he's forgotten. To have him constantly talking about us being afraid of having newcomers come to Babble as the reason we're upset is sooooo distressing to me. I don't know anyone who doesn't want people here. And altogether I think he's focusing on the wrong side of the issue. It's the use of our posts that distresses me, not that I'm afraid of hordes of people joining Babble because of Twitter or Facebook.
Sigh. That's what I love about Babble, what you did. It's a shame that Dr. Bob just doesn't listen, or if he listens, doesn't hear. He's reminding me a lot of my middle school teachers.
Again, I request that no one use Facebook or Twitter this post without my permission.
Posted by cactus on October 31, 2009, at 17:28:24
In reply to I agree with Cactus - ) Dr. Bob, posted by Kath on October 31, 2009, at 11:06:31
Thanks Kath, I feel like you really heard what I'm trying to say.
I don't think we can actually be removed from threads that we appear on once we have been twittered.
I'm leaving, I'll leave my babble mail on, please feel free to contact me anytime. C
I'm looking into psych central at the moment but if you come up with any other ideas please let me know.
Peace C
Posted by cactus on October 31, 2009, at 17:31:00
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on October 31, 2009, at 10:13:53
Amazing Dinah, perfectly said. C
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2009, at 3:05:47
In reply to Re: I agree with Cactus - ) Dr. Bob » Kath, posted by cactus on October 31, 2009, at 17:28:24
> I can only speak for myself, but I would guess having that option/setting installed - from the registration/update registration - to have or not have Twitter/Facebook linking icons at the bottom of one's posts would keep people here and allow one post more supportively, and possibly bring back those who left.
>
> For new users - as far as opting out rather than in - that should work as long as it is CLEARLY stated (as opposed to being covertly imbedded into some jargon) their posts could be linked to Facebook/Twitter using the icons if they choose to not opt out. You should also tell them their initial post will be tweeted out by you to welcome them.
>
> psych chat> Yes, this seems like an excellent solution. I really hope this option is put into place. I would be satisfied.
>
> fb> I think that would be a great alternative to have an "opt out" as part of our registration.
>
> Would this opt out be applied to our older posts, or just the ones subsequent to the opt out?
>
> Seldom.> is this option one that applies to the reader of the posts or the poster of the posts?
>
> Dinah> YESSS Sounds very good.
>
> So just to verify - would this mean that the 'default' would be 'no Facebook' & people would have to request somehow that the buttons be at the bottom of their posts?
>
> KathThanks for working with me on this and supporting this plan. It should be working now. Here are links to the setting, the FAQ, and the consent:
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#sharetweet
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/consent.htmlYour setting applies to all your posts. The posts you've posted, not the posts you read. It's opt-out, like the "do not share/tweet" list was. The default is buttons, and you can opt out of the buttons if you don't want them.
--
> This would be acceptable for me, as long as people who respond or click on the twittered posts can't see us and our replies at all
>
> Cactus> I agree & to me, this is an extremely important aspect.
>
> If people join they can see all.
> If NOT - they can't - pretty simple & straightforward.
>
> Kath> I don't think we can actually be removed from threads that we appear on once we have been twittered.
>
> CactusSome of you may be unfamiliar with Twitter, which could be another source of anxiety. I should explain more. It might be worth a thousand words, so here's a "picture":
http://twitter.com/psycho_babel
That takes you to the "tweets" (posts to Twitter) by @psycho_babel (the @ indicates a Twitter username). You don't need a Twitter account to go there.
A tweet is a short text message. The text can include links. When "a post is tweeted", that whole web page doesn't show up on Twitter. All that's posted is a link and some text, either an excerpt or a request to welcome a new poster.
So that doesn't include replies. But if someone reads the tweet and clicks on the link, that brings them to Babble, and of course once they're here, they do see the whole page. Even if they haven't registered. Like Google doesn't show whole pages, but anyone can click on the links and see them.
> I had never thot of the google thing B4...
> I am going to try and be much more careful in future.
>
> muffledPlease do try to keep in mind that this is a public forum. Maybe another way the new buttons can help is to remind people of that!
--
> Bob, bigger is NOT always better.
> Having hordes descend into a group is NOT useful.
>
> muffled> people specifically looking for a site like this from a need rather than from curiosity after reading a Facebooked or Tweeted post - Those people are the new people who I'd be glad to see arrive here.
>
> I think that a large influx of new members over a short period of time isn't ideal. Who knows if that's what would result from Facebooking/Twittering.
>
> KathI don't want hordes to descend, either. That could also be a source of anxiety. But I myself think it's unlikely, and if there are in fact hordes, the number of new registrations during a particular time period could be limited, and beyond that new people could be asked to wait.
Again, I have mixed feelings about us-them thinking. I think some Facebook and Twitter users feel a need for a site like this and some current Babble users are here because of curiosity. And some people may come out of curiosity, but stay because they feel a need.
Bob
PS: I haven't gotten to some posts yet, I'll reply to them later.
Posted by henrietta on November 1, 2009, at 6:08:56
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2009, at 3:05:47
Thanks. Being able to remove the buttons helps.
Posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 6:43:26
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2009, at 3:05:47
Thank you, Dr. Bob.
I do think this is a reasonable compromise.
When you register for the first time, are you directed to the settings page?
(Would it be possible for babblemail on/off to be on the settings page instead of in the registration?)
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2009, at 11:50:44
In reply to Re: another setting » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on November 1, 2009, at 6:43:26
> Thanks. Being able to remove the buttons helps.
>
> henrietta> Thank you, Dr. Bob.
>
> I do think this is a reasonable compromise.
>
> When you register for the first time, are you directed to the settings page?
>
> (Would it be possible for babblemail on/off to be on the settings page instead of in the registration?)
>
> DinahYou're welcome. Thanks for your input, and your patience.
I've included a link from the welcome page, too, that's a good idea. And I agree, babblemail should also be a setting, let me see how hard it would be to change that...
Bob
Posted by floatingbridge on November 1, 2009, at 12:00:49
In reply to Re: another setting, posted by Dr. Bob on November 1, 2009, at 11:50:44
:-)
an icon free,
fb
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.