![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 10 to 34 of 97. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 14:00:14
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person., posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 8:23:36
> And of course, if you think about it, any anger should be directed at Bob.
>
> If someone is engaging in behaviors that are disruptive to the community, the real power and thus the real responsibility lies with the administrators of that community. Power and responsibility go hand in hand. You can't have one without the other. I don't really think Lou is responsible in the moral sense. And we have no power.
>
> Except the power to change our own feelings, yada, yada, yada.D,
YOu wrote, if someone is engaging in behaviors that are disruptive to the community...].
Please do not use me as a scapegoat and post lies aout me here as having behaviors that are disruptive to the community.
What you have written is hate. Hate that has historical parallels that accuse people and blame them for their issues whatever they may be. I am not disrupting anything, for there is the freedom to post from one's perspective and the Jewish perspective is included. Granted, I am prohibited from posting the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me but that is for another time to discuss.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 14:17:45
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » SLS, posted by TemporarilyBob on October 26, 2012, at 3:05:28
> Well said.
>
> Probably could not have been said, er, weller. Though I'd suggest the Christian axiom of "Love the sinner, hate the sin" is nowhere near appropriate here if anyone thinks of it. That still makes the man guilty-as-charged. We need acts of reason here, not appeals to authority ... even if the "authority" is one based on reasonable thinking. If someone says something here that makes you angry -- identify the true source of the anger and deal with it; not the messenger.
>
> And remember the Code of the Babblelonians: Be civil, and Your Mileage May Vary.T_B,
You wrote,[...That still makes the man guilty- as- charged...].
Please do not post anything tha could arouse hatred to me here. I am not guilty of anything for the forum is for different points of view. Your "Dr Bob" allows you to post that hate here as in the falsely accusing me of something that I am guilty of. If you think that it is supportive, then you support hate. And hate could cause the death of the soul which I am here to show you a way to life of the soul. And I think that would be supportive on any mental- health forum.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 14:30:57
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 11:46:21
> What you say is certainly true. It is only human and natural to feel anger over being abandoned by Dr. Bob, especially as we have seen gradually increasing negativity and progressive losses in the numbers of people posting.
>
> I don't know if this is the case or not, but Dr. bob may have withdrawn because he found moderating to be a time- consuming and thankless task. I retain a (slight) hope that he might find a new, easier style of moderating which would require less of his time, and would concentrate only on major hurtful infractions which are clear to everyone. Right now, we could clearly benefit from some reasonable action on at least one destructive situation.
>
> Because I still do have a slight hope that Bob will once again moderate us in a more easy-going way, I don't want to make that however remote possibility even less likely by blaming him for everything!Tl,
You wrote,[...one destructve situation...]
Please do not popst vague statements as the one here. When the drafter of a post uses a non-specific phrase, such as {destructive situation} people can think that you are referring to what is in the thread in discussion. Now the thread contains lies and hate directed at me and I would like that corrected. But you may think that the destructive situation referrs to something else. If so, go ahead and say so here right now. Then I will respond to whatever you want to say about me here and if the destructive situation is that I am a member posting from my pount of view as in the Jewish perspective, then we can see what you think support is.
Lou
Posted by ChicagoKat on October 26, 2012, at 15:02:21
In reply to Let us not ridicule the person., posted by SLS on October 26, 2012, at 0:03:05
well said Scott. I fully agree with you, and I applaud you for making your post
Kat
> Lou Pilder is a person. He is not his opinions. I disagree with most of his opinions, but I try not to make him the object of ridicule. I like to think that I succeed, but I may not.
>
> In my opinion, ridicule is ugly, and it makes Psycho-Babble a less attractive place.
>
> I can't know for sure that Lou Pilder has an Axis I mental illness. However, having a mental illness doesn't preclude other people from posting here without being ridiculed.
>
> Of course, the above is just one person's opinion. I just hope that no one will ridicule me for offering it. Contrary to what some people think, I do have feelings, and can be hurt. Lou Pilder demonstrates great resiliency in the face of ridicule. I am not sure that I would be so resilient. If nothing else, Lou Pilder is determined and not easily deterred by ridicule and personal attacks. I wish I were more like him in this respect.
>
>
> - Scott
Posted by TemporarilyBob on October 26, 2012, at 15:34:20
In reply to Lou's response-akuzasgillt » TemporarilyBob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 14:17:45
> You wrote,[...That still makes the man guilty- as- charged...].You misunderstand me, Lou.
I'm saying that the typical attitude I described is a way some people think to deflect "blame" from a person onto a thing, an idea. I am pointing out that that method still places blame on the person and, as such, is an inappropriate metaphor to be using.
You deserve better than that, Lou. Please reread my original post and I hope you will see what I mean.
Posted by Christ_empowered on October 26, 2012, at 15:51:36
In reply to Re: Lou's response-akuzasgillt » Lou Pilder, posted by TemporarilyBob on October 26, 2012, at 15:34:20
I get where Lou's coming from. Shrinks made it a point to screw me over royally when I was younger. HIPPAA violations, b*llsh*t psychobabble diagnoses, terrible med combos, abuse, etc. Happens more often than you might think.
So..I see his point, usually. I also see a day coming up when I just might be "recovered" sufficiently to get out of psychiatry. Maybe go to a family doc?
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:28:30
In reply to Lou's response-moarheyt » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 13:52:02
Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of Judaism?
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:38:09
In reply to Lou's response-scehyp » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 14:00:14
Hmmm... I was referring to the fact that a good deal of posts on this board seem to be about you rather than about education and support. The purpose of the board is support and education.
Perhaps I didn't word it correctly.
I don't mean to be uncivil to you. I also don't think you should be uncivil to others.
You know, I've been thinking. I don't know why you care what Bob says anymore. But if you do...
Why don't you post on the religion board your entire story. Wherever something would violate Bob's rules, you could ask people to contact you by babblemail if they want to know more.
For example, I don't think Dr. Bob has any problem with you talking about the lake of fire. So go ahead and talk about it. But when you want to refer directly or indirectly to people of the community as burning in the lake of fire, you could say "If anyone wants to know who will be burning in the lake of fire, please contact me by Babblemail."
There's no reason you can't post about what you believe as long as you don't refer to people in the community who don't do what the rider says as going to hell, or burning in the lake of fire, or anything about their bones. Which doesn't mean you can't mention those things. Just that Dr. Bob didn't want you to accuse others of doing or not doing things.
I'm going from memory, so if I'm remembering wrong, I apologize.
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:40:52
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 11:46:21
I wouldn't want to discourage anyone's hope, if they find hope a positive thing.
I've never really understood that. Hope, to me, is a very negative thing. Hoping that Bob will eventually decide to moderate hurts me. Radical acceptance that he won't hurts less.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 16:54:25
In reply to Re: Lou's response-moarheyt » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:28:30
> Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of JudaiD,
D
When the drafter of a post uses vague descriptions and problematic language, the readers do not have to read their mind to understand what is written. They then go to the context of the post in relation to thewcontext of the entire thread. And what the reader interprets from the post is what it is, not what the author wanted it to mean. Ifthe author wanted it to mean differently, they could have written it for that understanding.
Now after placing the post in the context of the thread to understand it, then you could place it in the context of all the related posts eve in other threads. The fact that she wanted me to lie previously to circumvent a rule here shows what it shows and adds to the meaning of her post to me. The fact that Mr Hsiung allows antisemitic statements to tand plays a part in the meaning also. The use of {Sadly} speaks vbolumes. ANd the word is connected to what I believe which throughout the entrire forum is how oe can overcome addiction and depression from a Jewish perspective. The fact that there are years of outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here adds to the meaning. Fot the outstanding requests deal with antisemitic statements being allowed to stand.
In this one, not only is Judaism insulted, but Islam and other faiths also and people here could think hat it is supportive because it stands wuthout sanction and support takes preceence. SO peole ere could post all they want of antisemitic slurs and such for it is established that antisemitic statements are supportive by the convention of them being alowed to stand for unsupportive statment are ot allowed to stand because one match could start a forest fire. And look at the fire here now.
Here is a link that starts this off and it has never been sanctioned and my request are still outstanding so the fire of hate is still burning.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
Then the insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths as in the 2end list #5 as the "worst"
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
Now as long as the fire of hate is burning here, there will be posts that defame Judaism and me as a Jew. There could be many variations of how to do this, but it really doesn't matter to me. For if the word B*llsh*t is directed to me, it says that my faith is B*llsh*t for she connects the two with what I *believe* and what I have been writing here. Sadly that I believe what I write? That could nmean that what Mr Hsiung is allowed to stand "reflects the posting policies here." andthat it is sad that I do not adopt his thinking.
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:59:52
In reply to Lou's reply-rephlexpolo » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 16:54:25
No, it doesn't.
But nothing I say will convince you of that, so why bother.
Which is what I meant to begin with. You see that as hate from me. At most I see it as frustration and anger. But you'll believe what you want.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 17:28:39
In reply to Re: Lou's response-moarheyt » Lou Pilder, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:28:30
> Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of Judaism?
D,
You wrote the above. Now let us look at the post in question to see what is what is.
The first statement is by me.Lou
...and if my perspective supressed that would have saved their child's life, then whose blood would te dead child's be upon?...
Now her response to me
gg
I call it b*llsh*t. So again, b*llsh*t. But I believe that you believe what you write. SadlyNow what is what it is.
In my statement here, notice that states:
...if {my perspective supressed...
YOu see, her reply to me concerns {my perspective}. And she calls it B*llsh*t.
Now my perspective is from the Jewish perspective that Mr Hsiung has posted to me a prohibition that prevents me from posting it. This is the crux of the post as what is plainly visible.
Then she states that she believe that I believe my perspective , which is from a Jewish perspective. {Sadly}.
Now you do not need a mastermind to know what is said by her to be {b*llsh*t}.
Now Mr Hsiung allows hat to be directed to me and people can think that reflects the posting policy here. That could lead others to gang up on me and bully me and I could be victim of antisemitic violence. My perspective b*llsh*t? In a mental -health forum? And that is not hatered directed toward Judaism?
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20120228/msgs/1029564.html
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 17:36:53
In reply to Lou's reply-ahntigewdegyizm » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 17:28:39
The poster herself said that her post was about your behavior, not your religion.
She was doubting your motivations. She was saying that if that was your motivation, you could reach a wider target elsewhere. You then explained that you had a mission to Babble specifically, and that probably would have ended that portion of the discussion right there with greater understanding had you not accused her of things she didn't mean. I certainly wasn't aware that the Rider's charge to you was specifically related to Babble. I doubt she was either. I appreciated the clarification. I myself couldn't figure out why you weren't on CNN.com with it's greater audience.
Or at least that's my recollection.
Posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 17:46:06
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 16:40:52
We really do differ on this, although I had better be the first to admit that having hope means being disappointed! When I was really depressed, I didn't have any hope at all about the future. Now that that is (mostly) behind me, I find I just naturally have hopes and wishes about how things will go; it just seems like part of focussing one's efforts. Without little hopes of various sorts, I thnk it would be hard to concentrate my efforts towards a goal.
I'm with you on not liking how the board is functioning - not one bit.
Posted by schleprock on October 26, 2012, at 17:48:34
In reply to Lou's reply-rephlexpolo » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 16:54:25
> > Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of JudaiD,
>
> D
> When the drafter of a post uses vague descriptions and problematic language, the readers do not have to read their mind to understand what is written. They then go to the context of the post in relation to thewcontext of the entire thread. And what the reader interprets from the post is what it is, not what the author wanted it to mean. Ifthe author wanted it to mean differently, they could have written it for that understanding.
> Now after placing the post in the context of the thread to understand it, then you could place it in the context of all the related posts eve in other threads. The fact that she wanted me to lie previously to circumvent a rule here shows what it shows and adds to the meaning of her post to me. The fact that Mr Hsiung allows antisemitic statements to tand plays a part in the meaning also. The use of {Sadly} speaks vbolumes. ANd the word is connected to what I believe which throughout the entrire forum is how oe can overcome addiction and depression from a Jewish perspective. The fact that there are years of outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here adds to the meaning. Fot the outstanding requests deal with antisemitic statements being allowed to stand.
> In this one, not only is Judaism insulted, but Islam and other faiths also and people here could think hat it is supportive because it stands wuthout sanction and support takes preceence. SO peole ere could post all they want of antisemitic slurs and such for it is established that antisemitic statements are supportive by the convention of them being alowed to stand for unsupportive statment are ot allowed to stand because one match could start a forest fire. And look at the fire here now.
> Here is a link that starts this off and it has never been sanctioned and my request are still outstanding so the fire of hate is still burning.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
> Then the insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths as in the 2end list #5 as the "worst"
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> Now as long as the fire of hate is burning here, there will be posts that defame Judaism and me as a Jew. There could be many variations of how to do this, but it really doesn't matter to me. For if the word B*llsh*t is directed to me, it says that my faith is B*llsh*t for she connects the two with what I *believe* and what I have been writing here. Sadly that I believe what I write? That could nmean that what Mr Hsiung is allowed to stand "reflects the posting policies here." andthat it is sad that I do not adopt his thinking.
> LouSo you've really been waiting almost 8 years for a reply from this "Mr Hsiung"? And your anger has actually been burning for almost 8 years because you have yet to receive a response? I find that incredible.
Perhaps there's a deputy moderator around here, someone >>>>"temporarily"<<< in charge who could finally resolve this outstanding issue for you.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:19
In reply to Re: Lou's reply-rephlexpolo, posted by schleprock on October 26, 2012, at 17:48:34
> > > Lou, I don't hate you. I could be wrong. I just saw that people wrote words about your behavior and you appeared to interpret it as evidence that the posters were attacking the foundation of Judaism. I can certainly misunderstand. Did you indeed realize that the words were not about the foundations of JudaiD,
> >
> > D
> > When the drafter of a post uses vague descriptions and problematic language, the readers do not have to read their mind to understand what is written. They then go to the context of the post in relation to thewcontext of the entire thread. And what the reader interprets from the post is what it is, not what the author wanted it to mean. Ifthe author wanted it to mean differently, they could have written it for that understanding.
> > Now after placing the post in the context of the thread to understand it, then you could place it in the context of all the related posts eve in other threads. The fact that she wanted me to lie previously to circumvent a rule here shows what it shows and adds to the meaning of her post to me. The fact that Mr Hsiung allows antisemitic statements to tand plays a part in the meaning also. The use of {Sadly} speaks vbolumes. ANd the word is connected to what I believe which throughout the entrire forum is how oe can overcome addiction and depression from a Jewish perspective. The fact that there are years of outstanding requests from me to Mr Hsiung here adds to the meaning. Fot the outstanding requests deal with antisemitic statements being allowed to stand.
> > In this one, not only is Judaism insulted, but Islam and other faiths also and people here could think hat it is supportive because it stands wuthout sanction and support takes preceence. SO peole ere could post all they want of antisemitic slurs and such for it is established that antisemitic statements are supportive by the convention of them being alowed to stand for unsupportive statment are ot allowed to stand because one match could start a forest fire. And look at the fire here now.
> > Here is a link that starts this off and it has never been sanctioned and my request are still outstanding so the fire of hate is still burning.
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041109/msgs/428781.html
> > Then the insult to Judaism and Islam and other faiths as in the 2end list #5 as the "worst"
> > http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20040729/msgs/378930.html
> > Now as long as the fire of hate is burning here, there will be posts that defame Judaism and me as a Jew. There could be many variations of how to do this, but it really doesn't matter to me. For if the word B*llsh*t is directed to me, it says that my faith is B*llsh*t for she connects the two with what I *believe* and what I have been writing here. Sadly that I believe what I write? That could nmean that what Mr Hsiung is allowed to stand "reflects the posting policies here." andthat it is sad that I do not adopt his thinking.
> > Lou
>
> So you've really been waiting almost 8 years for a reply from this "Mr Hsiung"? And your anger has actually been burning for almost 8 years because you have yet to receive a response? I find that incredible.
>
> Perhaps there's a deputy moderator around here, someone >>>>"temporarily"<<< in charge who could finally resolve this outstanding issue for you.schleprock,
The fire of hate is in the posts that the links here show concerning hatred to the Jews, not my anger for them to be allowed to stand. Mr Hsiung states that he does not wait to sanction a post that could start a forest fire. But it is 8 years and I have aske him to appoint a special moderator in his behalf to post what could show that the forum's administration considers the antisemitic statems uncivil. I have asked for other remedies also.
The posts are just a sample of posts thatdefame he Jews that are allowed to stand here. The posts unsanctioned states that they are supportive a per Mr Hsiung's TOS here as that support takes precedence. That means there is no rationale acceptable to allow an antisemitic statement to stand. So since they do stand, people could think that hatred toward the Jews is supportive here.
This is a forum of hate as long as Mr Hsiung allows those kinds of statements to stand. And it is a greater shame that members in mass to this day have not posted in the threads where those posts appear
Lou
Posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:33
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 17:46:06
It's not that I don't have hope in the future. It's that I try not to have hope in certain situations or people to behave any differently than they have shown themselves to behave.
My hopes might be based more on having a community somewhere that I might be a part of, or that Babble will remain as nice an unmoderated board as an unmoderated board can be. My hopes for the future might involve reminding myself that I can post here as long as I like, but if I stop liking it, I can stop posting. It might even be that thank heavens this didn't happen back when I was in more turmoil in therapy or struggling more over medications. It might just be to remind myself that while I'm totally impotent at Babble, and unable to help people in any real way, I'm not impotently stuck at Babble. Unlike middle school, I can leave.
I rarely have hopes of Dr. Bob. If you see me getting really upset about Babble, it likely means I had a few moments of hope in its founder.
Posted by Twinleaf on October 26, 2012, at 18:08:02
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:33
We actually have many of the same hopes. Most of mine are fairly modest and cautious.
Posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Twinleaf, posted by Dinah on October 26, 2012, at 18:03:33
I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
I don't know Lou's DX but this excessive religiosity can be a symptom of serious mental illness. If that's true then we are witnessing an individual, for a decade, live in a world of pain and constantly being misunderstood.
Lou will be here long after I'm gone but I just feel I'm dealing with someone in turmoil and there's nothing anyone can do.
I would hate to see anyone trapped in a world that separated them from people that would do anything to help.
Tomorrow it will start all over again and instead of getting help, it just seems to me that Lou has to fight the battle that isn't originating here but possibly is fed and nourished by his own disease. I find that heartbreaking. (I'm not playing dr, just saying something that originates in my heart.) More than anything, God wants us to be happy. life is short.)
Posted by phidippus on October 26, 2012, at 19:34:59
In reply to Let us not ridicule the person., posted by SLS on October 26, 2012, at 0:03:05
Who the hell is Lou Pilder?
Eric
Posted by Phillipa on October 26, 2012, at 20:44:40
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
Phil any ideas how we can get Lou help? Phillipa
Posted by schleprock on October 26, 2012, at 22:55:45
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » SLS, posted by phidippus on October 26, 2012, at 19:34:59
> Who the hell is Lou Pilder?
>
> EricLou Pilder = "Red Pill"
Posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 23:57:30
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Phil, posted by Phillipa on October 26, 2012, at 20:44:40
> Phil any ideas how we can get Lou help? Phillipa
Nope.
Posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2012, at 2:16:15
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Dinah, posted by Phil on October 26, 2012, at 18:53:16
> I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
Ding ding ding ding! Phil FTW!
My own personal experience in dealing with Lou's notifications and personal communications of requests for administrative actions is that is was constant escalation once he got a "foot in the door" of sorts. Whether I acted on something at his request or on my own based on my independent reaction to something, it almost always resulted in multiple additional requests for action on past issues or on issues I'd declined to address on way or another. And as a volunteer here, I had the right to decline for any reason. Many times I declined because I didn't feel I had an adequate understanding or context about what Lou thought was uncivil to make a thoughtful decision. My recollection, which is not 100% accurate, I'm sure, is that this caution on my part was never satisfactory. And god forbid I actually disagreed with his interpretation. That was usually met with multiple, and I mean many multiple replies with increasing justifications and demands. After a number of these interactions, based on the language used, which at times took on a legalistic tone, I began to believe that this escalation could go as high as some kind of lawsuit. No volunteer could be expected to put up with that unsupported.
So it's not just the time it takes to address all of Lou's notifications, though that itself is daunting.
And as I sit here feeling the need to defend myself again, I realize that I'm reacting to that same dance. And I don't have to. And I know it's not helping Lou. Just wanted to add some context to the crap stream that the "man behind the curtain" may be experiencing.
gg
Posted by SLS on October 27, 2012, at 7:09:02
In reply to Re: Let us not ridicule the person. » Phil, posted by gardenergirl on October 27, 2012, at 2:16:15
> > I like Lou but when one poster out of say 100, takes 95% of the moderators time, well, something is wrong.
> My own personal experience in dealing with Lou's notifications and personal communications of requests for administrative actions is that is was constant escalation once he got a "foot in the door" of sorts.I sometimes wonder in what ways Dr. Bob might be influenced to no longer block people from posting. Perhaps there is a man behind the curtain to the man behind the curtain.
I'm just musing. Obviously, something changed the behavior of the moderator. I am interested to know what that was.
- Scott
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.