![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 197 to 221 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 15:28:34
In reply to Re: I think I am still trying to understand... » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on January 31, 2005, at 23:40:45
> Ok. There I would say 'why is it wrong to mock handicapped people' and we would probably agree that it is hurtful. And so here I guess your point is that the former is hurtful too...Yep, that's it, thanks, I have to work on my clarity.
> But I would say that some good could come of small boards (not that it *will* come - but that it *might possibly*) for all the reasons that Dr Bob has given.People already have that choice, why must it be risked under the auspices of Babble?
Whereas I cannot see what good could come of mocking handicapped people.No.
>
>
> Maybe he doesn't get how hurt people are likely to be...I think that's likely, I really do.
> > Yes, and he does, as I do, it works both ways.
>
> Yes.
>
> > > And that is a different issue from whether they should be implemented or not.
>
> > No, actually I can agree to disagree on just about any topic but not where it involves implementing something that I believe is going to hurt people.
>
> Not even for a greater good? I would say that Dr Bob thinks more good than harm would be likely to come from this or he wouldn't want to implement the idea. Maybe he is wrong, but I have faith that he is well intentioned (as are we all...).That would contradict Dr. Bobs previous and stated philosophies/actions, which was to protect the most sensitive at the risk of alienating the majority, an examply being the srict offensive language rules. And again, I can't see the greater good when the opportunity to have private conversations is already freely available.
>
> Ok, I retract 'envy' (apologies) and replace it with 'hurt' as follows:
>
> > > Some people may feel hurt that they cannot be part of one small board in particular.
> > > Sounds like that is what people are trying to prevent.I don't think it's one small board in particular. I really don't. I think it's a general feeling of exclusion, hurt that people need to seperate from the rest, it's an inference.
It's very natural to have a close group of friends, but it's rude to only associate with them when you are in public.
> > > But are those feelings of hurt something that follows from small boards or something that follows from...I'm not sure the deeper reasons need to be dealt with here, that's for therapy. I think babble should be easier on people than that babble is for people who are already working on enough things and should I believe be a place that is as comfortable as possible.
> But is there a possible greater good?No, I don't think so. If there is I think it's sacrificing the type of people who are sacrificed every day every where else in the world and that repulses me on a mental health board.
> Will some people stay on Babble who otherwise would leave?
> Will some people feel more supported and more understood?
>
> Hard to weigh...
>
> I haven't made my mind up either way...
>
> PS. Ever thought of taking up philosophy :-)Ha! That's funny. I took philosophy for half a semester, it drove me bats. I figure if you can get everyone to agree on one thing (namely a philosophy) then you have no need for a philosophy.. Now when people discuss philosophy that's generally when I go play with the dog. : )
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 15:46:24
In reply to Re: why people don't like this, posted by Dr. Bob on February 1, 2005, at 2:17:03
> If people know what it's like to be shut out, > But I think it's OK if they think about themselves, too. And want a room to stay cozy, for example, if that's the way they like it.
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Then they can certainly do that, in their cozy room at home, and they can invite people over, and I won't stop them. However, if they want to put on their housecoat and slippers, and bring their two best friends, and park themselves in the middle of my living room and carry on a private conversation at my cocktail party then they can just help themselves to the almond cookies and special kool-aid punch I have on hand for just such boors.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 16:15:36
In reply to Fallen, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 6:55:35
Dinah all I know is I would gladly share my seat and fit 100 of the current users on the bus even if we had to sit on each others laps..I will sit on Brokens :) than shut the door in someones face..thats more to Dr Bob than you..You and I agree....I think like an old song I heard....when the stone men said "you see what you wanna see and hear what you wanna hear" is fitting for Dr Bob and his already made up mind.I won't be here when I have to shut a door on anyone's face not one person like or dislike them it is just not my style. And no Dr Bob I am not being snide it IS your site
> I think my logic about walls with no doors is along the lines that there are already walls with no doors. Emails, Open (which is of course Open to all, but not everyone is there at any given time and it's not archived), Yahoo conferences. They're all things we do when we wish to be private.
>
> They're all very nice ways of being private, because they *are* private.
>
> Restrictions are a not very nice way of being private, because they're not private.
>
> I still just don't understand why Dr. Bob is so wedded to the idea of restrictions. I can come up with lots of nice pleasant reasons for his motives in a lot of aspects to this, but I'm at a loss when it comes to his attachments to restrictions. To exclusion. It's even harder to comprehend when he mixes a wedding to the idea of exclusion to a wedding of making the exlusion area public.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on February 1, 2005, at 16:22:03
In reply to Re: why people don't like this » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 15:46:24
Good Lord, I just found this discussion. Not being able to endure ADmin. much of the time, I stay off of it.
So, my 2 cents. I feel this is a really horrible idea. I can't say anything new here that others have said much more eloquently.
so if I can't sign in on time under the first come first serve rules, then I'm SOL? Personally, I find the Babble 2000 Board ostracizing. And the Newbies since I can't even post there. I just feel this will cause major DIVISION, something which is not a good atmosphere for a forum dedicated to emotional support.
This will become highschool. The cool kids will have their little room and the rest of us will begin to look at them in awe.
To be frank, I get a little jealous of some of the strong bonds between people here at Babble. I know that's ridiculous, but I do. As with life in general, I sometimes feel ignored, or that people probably roll their eyes at my posts, etc. I'm sure this is all irrational. However, If sometimes I feel ignored now, I can only imagine how I will feel when I can't participate where I want!!!!
And really, I can't be the only person who feels this way.
I really love Babble. One of the reasons is because of how open it is. We're all equals. This new proposal makes me sick to my stomach.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 16:27:44
In reply to I'm sick to my stomach, posted by Miss Honeychurch on February 1, 2005, at 16:22:03
I don't think I'm being a pollyanna Miss Honeychurch, but I can't see how this will work even if it is implemented. First of all I have too much faith in Babblers, and second of all, there aren't enough posters, they other segregated boards have just about died on their own. If you look at the amount of posters on Social at any given time, and then try to imagine how many posters could possibly be separated from it and actually have company while they are in a different room it doesn't bode well for segregated areas.
(((Miss Honeychurch)))
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 16:36:00
In reply to Re: I'm sick to my stomach » Miss Honeychurch, posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 16:27:44
I don't disagree with what you say, Gabbi. But to me the stomach turning thing is if Dr. Bob implements it, even if Babblers are more aware of issues of politeness than he is and it never gets off the ground.
If Babble is like a coral reef made up of individual posters present and past, Dr. Bob is the force that to some extent molds Babble. The water currents or whatever. My simile breaks down here for lack of knowledge, I fear.
I just always expect better of him. :(
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 16:46:25
In reply to I'm sick to my stomach, posted by Miss Honeychurch on February 1, 2005, at 16:22:03
I feel the same and the thing is...I can post on the newbie thread cause I was one of the first greeters...I have said it all really by now I just wanted to let ya know I like you , youre not an outsider to me and I am sick over this idea...NOT CHANGE but THIS change.
> Good Lord, I just found this discussion. Not being able to endure ADmin. much of the time, I stay off of it.
>
> So, my 2 cents. I feel this is a really horrible idea. I can't say anything new here that others have said much more eloquently.
>
> so if I can't sign in on time under the first come first serve rules, then I'm SOL? Personally, I find the Babble 2000 Board ostracizing. And the Newbies since I can't even post there. I just feel this will cause major DIVISION, something which is not a good atmosphere for a forum dedicated to emotional support.
>
> This will become highschool. The cool kids will have their little room and the rest of us will begin to look at them in awe.
>
> To be frank, I get a little jealous of some of the strong bonds between people here at Babble. I know that's ridiculous, but I do. As with life in general, I sometimes feel ignored, or that people probably roll their eyes at my posts, etc. I'm sure this is all irrational. However, If sometimes I feel ignored now, I can only imagine how I will feel when I can't participate where I want!!!!
>
> And really, I can't be the only person who feels this way.
>
> I really love Babble. One of the reasons is because of how open it is. We're all equals. This new proposal makes me sick to my stomach.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 16:53:40
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 6:50:39
> Ahhh. CBT.
> I hate it.Oh dear, I wasn't trying to be CBTish at all. I would never knowingly inflict that on another human being :-)
I will try to explain what I had in mind. Have you ever seen a duck-rabbit picture? Here is a link:
http://philo.zm3.net/visuals/Ambiguous/DuckRabbit.gif
Now, is it a duck or is it a rabbit? (You might need to look again). It all depends on how you look at it. In a way it is a choice whether to view it as a duck or whether to view it as a rabbit. Can you see how it is senseless to argue about how we *should* see it, or to argue about how it is *really*?
Now what I had in mind was how we see VSG's. Is it a barred room or is it a picnic in the park? I suppose we could view it either way depending on whether we focus on the pro's or whether we focus on the con's. All I was trying to illustrate is that there are different ways of seeing the same thing. Differences of opinion typically come about because people see the thing they are disagreeing on in different ways. But IMO it is harder to be mad at someone for seeing it differently if we can see where they are coming from (though we can still choose to see it the other way at the end of the day).
What I worry about with this discussion is that you have certain things that you think VSG's are by definition. Exclusionary and elite and so on. If I thought that VSG's were in fact exclusionary and elite then I would be opposed to them as a matter of principal. They would violate my core values. The other way we could look at them is to say that VSG's will promote more intensive caring and feelings of inclusion. By defintion if you like. To see them that way then my core values would say - we *should* in fact implement them.
But can you see how people who view them differently (in the VSG case) are in actual fact talking about two different things?
That is why I am trying to talk about VSG's and remove the emotive analogies and try to talk about something that is somewhere in the middle. Something with pro's and con's. Something where you have to weigh up hurt that some people may feel from being excluded from the good feelings of belonging and care that some people may feel from being a member of a VSG.
That was my thought there.
> While I can see the value of reframing issues sometimes, I can't see the value of reframing them always. Sometimes issues shouldn't be reframed. A lot of injustice happens when people reframe things that shouldn't be reframed.You can still continue to see it your way at the end of the day, of course. I am just trying to say that if you do try to see it the other way then it is harder to be mad or disappointed in people who see it differently.
> I don't think reframing it in such a way as to violate your core values is a viable option.But what I am wondering is whether it is possible that there may be another way to look at it in which your core values aren't violated.
> And choosing to be hurt seems to me like the old sticks and stones retort. It sounds nice. It makes the CBT'ers tails' wag. But I think it sounds nicer than it sounds true.Hmm. That is a hard one. I am just trying to work on the *so very* hurt...
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 16:57:46
In reply to I guess Dr. Bob and Babble are intertwined for me » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 16:36:00
> I don't disagree with what you say, Gabbi. But to me the stomach turning thing is if Dr. Bob implements it, even if Babblers are more aware of issues of politeness than he is and it never gets off the ground.
I think I understand that feeling a little bit, I remember how very hurt I was.. one time when I was blocked as I percieved unfairly, I'm still surprised really the feelings it brought out. When I came back I think I made an unconscious Bob/Babble separation but I haven't forgotten how I felt the first time I was really dissappointed by him, and still I had never given him the same loyalty and support that you had it's sad to see this happening.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 17:00:13
In reply to I guess Dr. Bob and Babble are intertwined for me » Gabbix2, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 16:36:00
Dinah for me the deal is we cannot REALLY talk about politics or religion we have to *side* talk them (I read all the boards and those two TO ME seem to be two we could toss out and the newbie board plus I am not sure they need be on a psych board ) 2000 is not really used....the grief and health boards move into psych and social *more often than not*. If one really looked at Babble Psychology, Admin, Babble, and social are...the most traveled and used. Look at the posters in them....move 20 % OUT AT RANDOM ...then take some posters you love to talk with out say 4 ....toss a few new ones in you may like or not...take out maybe your best babble bud and you have a gated community....sickening and not something I would expect from a psych area.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 17:08:20
In reply to Re: I guess Dr. Bob and Babble are intertwined for me » Dinah, posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 16:57:46
Oddly and maybe very mistakenly I do not equate Dr Bob with the board but as only the sometimes board keeper..Thus I do not like nor dislike him as I do not know him. He is not my friend, he is not my enemy, he is not good nor evil he just IS...He is a dude that does research with what we do on the boards and say and whatever he does....I see Babble as US the collective group of posters I have come to love and not :) I don't want any of them to be shut out of where and with whom they want to be.
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 17:16:37
In reply to Re: I think I am still trying to understand... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 15:28:34
> > But I would say that some good could come of small boards (not that it *will* come - but that it *might possibly*) for all the reasons that Dr Bob has given.
> People already have that choice, why must it be risked under the auspices of Babble?Not people who don't know anyone in cyberspace...
Not people who don't already feel included...
> > Maybe he doesn't get how hurt people are likely to be...
> I think that's likely, I really do.Yes.
But maybe some other people don't get how some people could really benefit from feeling more included.
The 'restriction' idea isn't just for the sake of a restriction. It is a way to keep the number of posters down. That way people will notice when someone hasn't posted for a while. That way peoples threads are more likely to be responded to rather than bypassed.
> > Not even for a greater good? I would say that Dr Bob thinks more good than harm would be likely to come from this or he wouldn't want to implement the idea. Maybe he is wrong, but I have faith that he is well intentioned (as are we all...).
> That would contradict Dr. Bobs previous and stated philosophies/actions, which was to protect the most sensitive at the risk of alienating the majority, an examply being the srict offensive language rules. And again, I can't see the greater good when the opportunity to have private conversations is already freely available.
Ok. With respect to the offensive language rules how hard is it to put in the odd asterisk? Some people are offended by some language. It really isn't much cost to others to asterisk. In fact with the automated asterisking system in place we can just forget about it and swear to our little hearts content so long as the thing is left at default. I saw that as a comprimise between freedom of expression and the point that some people are offended. The automated asterisking provides the best of both worlds. The swearers don't have to change anything at all and people are no longer (as) offended.
Once again, what about the people who don't already have friends in cyberspace?
> I think it's a general feeling of exclusion, hurt that people need to seperate from the rest, it's an inference.What about people who are new to cyberspace? Who are too anxious to join a VLG to start with but may find the courage to join a VSG. Then they might venture out to the VLG once they have some confidence.
> It's very natural to have a close group of friends, but it's rude to only associate with them when you are in public.
So you think that if VSG's are implemented people won't post to the main babble boards anymore? I don't think that is likely. When a new board is added it doesn't seem to take away from the other boards, rather it gives us something new as well. I wouldn't reduce my main babble imput if I joined a VSG as well..
> I think babble should be easier on people than that babble is for people who are already working on enough things and should I believe be a place that is as comfortable as possible.
Yeah. I think that is the idea behind the VSG. To help people feel comfortable who don't feel comfortable in the VLG.
> > But is there a possible greater good?
> No, I don't think so. If there is I think it's sacrificing the type of people who are sacrificed every day every where else in the world and that repulses me on a mental health board.You can't think of any pro's for VSG's? Not even hypothetical ones? You can't see how or why someone could think that this could be a good idea?
To repeat:
> > Will some people stay on Babble who otherwise would leave?
> > Will some people feel more supported and more understood?> > Hard to weigh...
IMO. Hard to weigh.
> Ha! That's funny. I took philosophy for half a semester, it drove me bats. I figure if you can get everyone to agree on one thing (namely a philosophy) then you have no need for a philosophy.. Now when people discuss philosophy that's generally when I go play with the dog. : )
Heh heh, yeah ok. The more philosophy you do the more you see that the distinctions that they teach you early on actually collapse back in on one another. That the 'radically different' theories have so many things they agree on you wonder at the end of the day whether they are simply verbal disputes without much difference in substance. When you start to see things that way then you start to grasp something of the fact that people have been harping on about the same old stuff for centuries. Just using different words. The wisdom of the ages...
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 17:18:25
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 16:53:40
No, I'm sorry, I can't. It does appear that some people can, and even that astonishes me. But I can't.
And yes, I fear the idea does seem CBT'ish to me. Not that I mean to insult you or anything. :) But maybe you've absorbed more than you think. Again, I've no wish to insult you in any way. I'm sure it was totally against your will. (smile)
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 17:24:19
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 17:18:25
You can't what?
Thats not CBT Dinah, thats Gestalt theory.
Seeing / seeing as
The whole is more than the sum of its parts.
The atoms are the same - but we add an interpretation. And judgement follows from the way in which we interpret. And bad feelings follow from the judgements we make.You can stop the inevitable by viewing from another point of view.
The judgement stuff was from Linehan's buddist mindfulness stuff.
If you judge something to be all good...
If you judge something to be all bad...I give up now.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 17:38:13
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 17:24:19
Maybe I am lost but I thought last night you agreed to disaree and that would then mean you agreed to "give up" yesterday...if I misunderstood you could you please clarify this for me so that I do understand what your saying? By guve up I am referring to trying *to change minds* as if you have that magic potion or fix or however Gab worded it..... I am not referring to
NOT giving up on stating your views on this subject.
>
> The judgement stuff was from Linehan's buddist mindfulness stuff.
>
> If you judge something to be all good...
> If you judge something to be all bad...
>
> I give up now.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2005, at 17:58:23
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 17:38:13
I just have a question or thought about how these "might" turn out. (might as in whether they come to be or not). And I don't like the idea, just for the record. I see no need as we have Open, Babblemail, emails, etc.
I am assuming that participation in them would be voluntary, right? They would not take the place of the regular boards? So we could just ignore them and go on posting as we always do? That's kind of what I assumed I would do if he implements them. I don't really expect the people I know and love would jump on over to this and quit posting on the regular boards. Although I could be wrong.
And if new people choose to do this, although I can't see how they could if they are new, cause how would they know which group they want to be in? Would they "rush" the small groups, like with the Greek system on college campuses? (only partly kidding here, unfortunately). Because the idea of randomly being assigned to a group is not appealing to me. But anyway, if this is how newbies might become Babblers, then the harm to me is that I would not get to know them if they do not post on the regular boards.
I also assume that even if the viewing of them was open to all ( and ick!), then I could ignore them, right? Kind of like how I don't look much at the Substance Abuse board now?
I don't know. Perhaps it's a muting of emotions I am experiencing right now. But I just can't make myself get upset about this beyond objecting to the principle. I just assume I'll go on as I normally do, and I suppose I am trusting that the bulk of Babblers will do the same.
Am I dreaming here? Rose-colored glasses slip down my forehead over my eyes?
gg
Posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2005, at 17:59:37
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 17:38:13
Years and years of experience with this particular defense mechanism. (spits sand out)
If I can't see the new boards, they can't see me, aka affect me, right?
:D
gg
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 18:09:15
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 17:24:19
I'm not familiar with Gestalt. I suppose there is overlap between the various schools of thought. I should have known it wasn't CBT. :)
I invited Dr. Bob to put down defending both of our positions (globally of course) and talk at a deeper level. He declined my invitation.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 18:10:45
In reply to btw, I play ostrich really really well! » Fallen4MyT, posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2005, at 17:59:37
Lol I don't I am more a Rosa Parks kinda gal and will leave when that time comes for the principle
> Years and years of experience with this particular defense mechanism. (spits sand out)
>
> If I can't see the new boards, they can't see me, aka affect me, right?
>
> :D
>
> gg
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 1, 2005, at 18:10:53
In reply to Re: I think I am still trying to understand... » Gabbix2, posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 17:16:37
I really don't want to debate this anymore, I think we're both weary of it, but the example I gave of the offensive language was simply that an example. Bob has stated clearly that he wants the most sensitive, even if they are in the minority to feel at ease and has risked the alienation/dissatisfaction of the majority in order that they feel comfortable here, there have been various issues, language being only one.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 18:16:06
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 18:09:15
LMAO WHY AM I NOT......AT ALL...surprised by this? I cannot say and be civil :)
signed
Your fellow lab rat
>
> I invited Dr. Bob to put down defending both of our positions (globally of course) and talk at a deeper level. He declined my invitation.
>
>
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 18:22:54
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this..., posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2005, at 17:58:23
Yes, of course people can continue to post the way they do now. And of course, Gabbi's right about having faith in posters. I ignore the boards I can't post on as it is now unless someone posts something about someone I care about on Social (as sometimes happens because a concerned poster can't post directly to 2000) and I'm moved to go see what's going on with them. Of course, I can't help any because I'm not allowed to post, but I'm still concerned enough to want to help because I care.
But that doesn't change the fact that Dr. Bob, a mental health professional and a human being I admire, doesn't "get" it. Perhaps that shouldn't bother me as much as it does. Positive transference coming to ground with a thud? Except that it's thudded so very often that it must be broken to pieces by now. And it's not something unexpected from Dr. Bob. Quite the contrary. So why does it bother me?
I think it's the impotence. I always feel so impotent around Dr. Bob. The only way to avoid that is not to care what he does. I've gotten better at that I guess. But not yet good enough.
Restricted boards? How very... interesting.
I'm practicing.
If only he'll quit enticing me to express myself when it really won't make a bit of difference. Hmmm...
Dr. Bob, please quit teasing me with ideas when I really can't get anywhere with them. It's quite frustrating.
Posted by gardenergirl on February 1, 2005, at 18:46:37
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » gardenergirl, posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 18:22:54
"How very....interesting" reminds me of when I say "mmmmmmmm" to something. Not hmmmm (as in, "I need to think about that"), but rather mmmmmmmmmm. Not as in yummy, either. But just a very noncommittal verbal following which has more of an implication of "I really don't agree with you, but I'm not going to say that directly" than "uh huh".
So, restricted boards? mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 19:14:50
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on February 1, 2005, at 17:38:13
I never did intend to try to *make* people change their minds on whether they wanted small boards or not.
With respect to that I am happy to agree to disagree. Though that isn't even the point *because I don't care one way or the other*.
But I was being persistent in trying to show people that there are different ways that we can view them.
But some people don't seem to be able to see them from another angle. Not even for a moment. Being able to see them from another angle doesn't oblige you to change your mind on whether you want small boards or not. It doesn't require one to give up ones basic morals. But some people are determined that *it really is a rabbit* and that is the end of the story.
If you really can't understand how to empathise with anothers point of view and reasons then there really isn't much that I can say.
I give up.
People would rather be upset about this then try to understand.Good luck to you all.
Posted by Dinah on February 1, 2005, at 19:33:57
In reply to Re: I think I understand why people don't like this... » Fallen4MyT, posted by alexandra_k on February 1, 2005, at 19:14:50
You sound frustrated and angry, Alexandra. I'm sorry.
I feel the same way about Dr. Bob, so I empathize.
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.