![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 37 to 61 of 62. Go back in thread:
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 16, 2005, at 10:44:39
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by so on June 16, 2005, at 0:13:47
> > Once again, I could accept such challenges without limit if they were about the challenger, or something the challenger has said, otherwise, I don't think there's anything untoward about limiting them.
> >
> > Also, IMO, we're starting to step into the behavior vs. intention debate. I think it is much easier to enforce rules that are based on behavior. Some think I'm uncharitable for suggesting this, but intentions are so much harder to know than behavior.> I'm sorry, my mind just blanked on this -- I almost thought I had a handle on why people want posts questioning propriety of other people's posts limited, but then I realized I had no idea why, I am just acquiescing to the fact that some people want that, because acquiescence can sometimes be courteous and help resolve conflict.
>
> If ever there came a time people were no longer free to question what I write, I should probably unplug my keyboard, run a large magnet over my hard-drive, have somebody place all of my pens out of reach and find something else to do. It is people's questions that have made me a better writer.I thought we were starting to understand each other too. Have you actually followed this debate from its genesis? I am talking about limiting (not stopping altogether) a very specific kind of behavior: the habitual, public questioning before Admin of the civility of other posters.
For example, I once used the figure of speech "with a grain of salt" in a way that Lou felt compelled to question. It was not about him or something he'd said, and he was not actively involved in the thread my post was in. But rather than ask me to clarify what I meant, he asked Admin if my use of the term was OK. If the question wasn't about me, but rather just about the term "with a grain of salt," why point to my post? Why not just ask "Is the use of the term ‘with a grain of salt’ acceptable on this forum?"
I'm only using my post as an example -- you can find dozens, if not hundreds, of similar examples. IMO, these requests are attempts to point out a bias that Lou perceives in the "system." If that is his point, that's his right. I just don't think if the posts are not about him or something he has said that he should keep making a public display of dozens, if not hundreds, of other posters.
Here is his original post questioning my post: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/461232.html
Here is my response (once I found out my post had been questioned):
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050219/msgs/461399.html
Here is where I first tried – in admittedly poor fashion – to do something about habitual posting: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050323/msgs/484197.html (I got blocked, after only ever receiving one PBC – actually for the “grain of salt post” 1-2 months earlier, but not for using that idiom, if I remember correctly.)
Here’s where I tried to discuss the topic again, more diplomatically, I thought, and within the guidelines of the forum: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/487910.html (In this thread, at one point I mentioned the “grain of salt” idiom as an example of the kind of post I was talking about, and Lou felt it necessary to discuss its meaning all over again. I got blocked again near the end of this thread, which I thought was unfair – but I’m not the first person to feel that way, so I don’t feel completely singled out.)
And finally, here is where I addressed the idiom for a final time: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/497858.htmlYou know, like me, IMO, you seem to have some reservations about the fairness of how this forum is run. Like maybe some people get more lenient treatment than others? But you know what’s funny? IMO, Lou is untouchable here. Others besides myself have tried to address this issue and ended up leaving, all for just wanting to at least modify (if not squelch) a behavior they find accusatory and offensive. If they don’t leave, they learn to just bite their tongues, because this is a subject that is sure to get you blocked sooner or later if you persist. I admire your sticking up for Lou. I think Lou should have the same rights as the rest of us. But I actually feel he has additional rights that we don’t have.
For instance, the 3-complaint, as proposed by Dr. Bob, would allow Lou to keep questioning others’ posts virtually without end, but would silence me in my “mission” to simply make this kind of habitual, public behavior, whoever does it, unacceptable. And Dr. Bob won’t even rule on whether or not Lou’s behavior is civil. (He said he’d rather not label it, though he seems to have labeled me as a troublemaker.)
> As to the questions about compliance in this forum -- I don't think I'm going manic, but I just realized something dramatic about the dialectic nature of this forum --- this place is called "Psychobabble". Except with the possible exception of this forum, "Psychobabble" is a term used, as far as I can tell, solely to criticize ineffectual psychological discussion. In my thinking at this moment, I don't think it will ever be possible to reach some sort of stable discourse among people discussing psychology under the banner of a word with such connotations.
>
> We can't call anything on any of these pages "psychobabble" within what I perceive to be the guidelines of the site, but everything here is psychobabble? If ever I did, I no longer get it.
>
> With such a shaky rhetorical foundation as a site name that seems to contravene expecations of the site, any effort to stabilize interpersonal relationships with new rules might be geared for failure. The site needs a more supportive name to model the kind of supportive behavior the administrator expects. Maybe some people will say it doesn't matter, or it shouldn't matter. But those people will also need to say nothing about my participation has ever bothered them, because I think the dichotomy between that term with its hypercritical implications for psychology and the expectations put forward by the administrator of this site might be a large part of why I am perplexed by the unusually high dialectic expectations on this site.You lost me here, but I admire your mental prowess.
I won't be posting here for awhile, so take care!
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 10:52:08
In reply to furthermore... » so, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:23:53
Friends,
There are things written here about "so" that I would like you to consider some other things about those things before you reply to this thread.
A. could you consider that in some forums there are policys against "personal attacks" toward another person and could you make a determination, for yourself, before you post, to if you think that you could be writing something that could be considered to fall in the catagory of persanally attacking someone even though the definition of such may vary?
B. could you consider that this forum is moderated in a manner that perhaps many hours could go past untill either Dr. Hsiung or Dinah addresses a post, so that just because it is not addressed within , let's say, five hours, does not mean that what is written is acceptable here?
C. could you consider that just because Dinah, the deputy, is posting that that does not mean that since she has not addressed the post that it is acceptable for she writes that there are other conditions that , if they occur, then will she address a post.
D. could you consider that there are laws against defamation and that just because a person uses another name, that is not their real name, that that does not allow one legally to defame another on the internet in many jurisdictions?
E. could you consider that any response that agrees with statements by another here that have the potential to defame another could have the potential to be considerd that you wrote the same?
F. could you consider the above when you read the following and you decide to post to these statements?
1. [...you'r not perplexed at all...]
2. [...toying with language...]
3.[...I don't think you are here for support...]
4. [..you're interested in stirring up debate...]
5.[...hidden sarcasm...]
6. [...cleverly couched...]
7. [...you are having fun taking {secret digs} at PB...]
8. [...you think yourself to be smarter than many other people here...].
Lou
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:20:33
In reply to Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » JenStar, posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 10:52:08
Lou, I understand that my post as written to so IS probably inappropriate given the forum guidelines. But I wanted to post it anyway in the hopes that so will read it and respond to me. I DO suspect those things. And I wanted to get it "out there" for a response. I could probably have made the lanugage prettier, but the meaning behind it would still have been the same. Those are things I've come to suspect over the course of reading so's posts. He is welcome to respond as he chooses.
In general, I try not to post such messages. In general I really want to be kind and supportive, funny and nice. Over on social, I think I *am* that way! Something about admin seems to really get me all riled up. I know that's doesn't necessarily make it "ok" but this is something I feel strongly about. I feel a bit protective of babble, even though I'm by no means one of the longest-term members, or a so-called "VIP."
But I really LIKE babble, and I want it to be a place where we can all just get along and hang out and chat without bickering too much about the rules & regulations. To ME, that's what's fun about Babble. Obviously it's ironic, then, that I have chosen to post a few questionable posts. In the future I will try to avoid doing it again.
But like so, writing is part of my life too, and certain trends and phrases in the way he writes just makes me wonder about his motives. And I just don't know a "nice" way to ask about it.
thanks for listening & pointing things out.
JenStar
Posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2005, at 17:51:26
In reply to Re: Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:20:33
Did I miss something? I didn't know that it was disclosed that so is a male. For some reason I thought so was female. Don't know why. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:57:19
In reply to Re: Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » JenStar, posted by Phillipa on June 16, 2005, at 17:51:26
good point... for some reason I thought so had said he/she was a male. I may be confusing him/her with someone else!
Sorry if I got it wrong.
JenStar
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 16, 2005, at 18:05:06
In reply to Re: Lou's responseto an aspect of this thread-prsnlat? » Lou Pilder, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 17:20:33
Jen Star,
You wrote,[...inappropriate...wanted to post it anyway...that "so" would read it...].
My concern was that others could write similar posts about "so", so I wanted to make some attempt to not have that happen since the deputy writes that her intervention here could be dependant on other things happening so that an "escalation" could be decerned,and I thought that I could prevent the escaltion from happening with my post. I am not a deputy here, but a concerned "citizen".
But when you post things like that publically, I belive that we all have a responsibility to head off potential confrontations between others, if we can.
As far as "so's" motives, I can only see what can be seen and I find no fault with her/him.
Lou
Posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 0:12:56
In reply to furthermore... » so, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:23:53
> I also think that many of your posts contain "hidden" sarcasm, which you cleverly couch in big words, dependent clauses, and long sentences. For example, your use of "I'm perplexed" in your post about the title of PB seemed extremely sarcastic to me. I suspect that you are having fun taking "secret" digs at PB, that you think yourself to be smarter than many other people here.
> Am I right?
> JenStarNo sarcasm intended at all. I am totally perplexed that I write to a forum where my work appears under the headling "psychobabble" and I am perplexed that I managed for some period of time to avoid considering the common meaning of the term and what it might mean about my writing. My words are not offered as babble in the least. To the contrary, my effort is an attempt to find meaning, and to make my thoughts more coherent.
Havign confronted this realization, I am trying now to find meaning in a unique colloquial use of the term babble, but the dictionary doesn't offer much leeway. Alexandra_K did a fair job of summarizing what redeeming values might be found in the term as it is used here, but can you see how I would feel put down if my writing appeared anywhere else or even eventually feel put down that my participation here is described as follows:
Main Entry: bab·ble
Pronunciation: 'ba-b&l
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): bab·bled; bab·bling /-b(&-)li[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English babelen, probably of imitative origin
intransitive senses
1 a : to talk enthusiastically or excessively b : to utter meaningless or unintelligible sounds
2 : to make sounds as though babbling
transitive senses
1 : to utter in an incoherently or meaninglessly repetitious manner
2 : to reveal by talk that is too free
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=babble
and from dictionary.com
bab·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (bbl)
v. bab·bled, bab·bling, bab·bles
v. intr.
To utter a meaningless confusion of words or sounds: Babies babble before they can talk.
To talk foolishly or idly; chatter: “In 1977 [he] was thought of as crazy because he was babbling about supply side” (Newt Gingrich).
To make a continuous low, murmuring sound, as flowing water.v. tr.
To utter rapidly and indistinctly.
To blurt out impulsively; disclose without careful consideration.n.
Inarticulate or meaningless talk or sounds.
Idle or foolish talk; chatter.
A continuous low, murmuring sound, as of flowing water.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:14:52
In reply to Re: furthermore..., posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 0:12:56
I'm a bit confused about how someone might feel put down for having their writing associated with a certain word after independently choosing to post on a site with that word as the name.
Are you saying you feel you put yourself down by posting here?
gg
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 11:51:02
In reply to Re: furthermore... » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:14:52
Friends,
An aspect of this thread is about the title ,or name, of this forum,"Psychobabble".
I did wonder about if it is appropriate to call this forum by that name. Dr. Hsiung has a disclaimer in his FAQ and reading it really does not alleviate my concerns.
My concern is if the name has the potential for others to think that people that post here for suuport and education are in some way not to be taken seriously as to what they write. And I am concerned that the name could have the potential to stereotype those that post here.
Was not Abe Lincoln a person with depression disorder? And Winston Churchill? and Ted Turner? and Michelangelo? and Patti Duke? and Howard Hughes (OCD)? And how about Issac Newton? and Earnest Hemmingway? and F. Scott Fitzgerald? and numerous others that have made such great contributions to the human race.
Is the Gettysburg Address "psychobabble"?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 12:12:40
In reply to Lou;s response to an aspect of this thread-, posted by Lou Pilder on June 17, 2005, at 11:51:02
> Friends,
> An aspect of this thread is about the title ,or name, of this forum,"Psychobabble".
> I did wonder about if it is appropriate to call this forum by that name. Dr. Hsiung has a disclaimer in his FAQ and reading it really does not alleviate my concerns.
> My concern is if the name has the potential for others to think that people that post here for suuport and education are in some way not to be taken seriously as to what they write. And I am concerned that the name could have the potential to stereotype those that post here.
> Was not Abe Lincoln a person with depression disorder? And Winston Churchill? and Ted Turner? and Michelangelo? and Patti Duke? and Howard Hughes (OCD)? And how about Issac Newton? and Earnest Hemmingway? and F. Scott Fitzgerald? and numerous others that have made such great contributions to the human race.
> Is the Gettysburg Address "psychobabble"?
> Lou
>
> Friends,
This concern of mine, perhaps, can be seen in some of my posts. Do you now see why I was asking Dr. Hsiung to address the use of the idiom.[...Please,take {anything} that Dancingstar says with a grain of salt...]. It is not the idiom, but the use of it as directed to the other poster.
Lou
Posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 19:22:16
In reply to Re: furthermore... » so, posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 11:14:52
> Are you saying you feel you put yourself down by posting here?
>
> ggDo you think some people sometimes do things that, after time to consider the activity, turn out to be not so complementary of their self?
I think I have seen such circumstances during my long life, and I think some of the people who later realized the nature of the circumstance turned out to be some of the best resources for helping resolve the circumstance that led them to inadverntantly devalue their own worth.
Posted by gardenergirl on June 17, 2005, at 21:51:49
In reply to Re: beyond Babble, posted by so on June 17, 2005, at 19:22:16
I'll just take that as a "yes".
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:43:47
In reply to Re: so's further observation » so, posted by JenStar on June 16, 2005, at 9:19:19
> I suspect you're not perplexed at all. I suspect you enjoy toying with language, and somehow you found PB and have decided it to be your new "toy". I don't think you're here for support. I think you're interested in seeing if you can stir up debate.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused. I've asked you to be civil before, so now I'm going to block you from posting for a week.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:43:56
In reply to Re: so's further observation, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 16, 2005, at 10:44:39
> a behavior they find accusatory and offensive.
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused or put down. The last time you were blocked it was for 2 weeks, so this time it's for 6.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Follow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
> the 3-complaint, as proposed by Dr. Bob ... would silence me in my “mission” to simply make this kind of habitual, public behavior, whoever does it, unacceptable.
That's the thing, people can feel they're the target of someone else's mission...
Bob
Posted by All Done on June 18, 2005, at 11:31:53
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:43:56
Dr. Bob or anyone who knows the answer,
How does the blocking system go? 1 week, 2 weeks, 6 weeks, 12 weeks...? Not always doubled, sometimes tripled (in the case of 2 weeks to 6 weeks)?
Thanks,
Laurie
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:30:56
In reply to Re: number of weeks » Dr. Bob, posted by All Done on June 18, 2005, at 11:31:53
> How does the blocking system go?
See:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Bob
Posted by All Done on June 22, 2005, at 10:25:32
In reply to Re: number of weeks, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 13:30:56
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 1, 2005, at 20:38:59
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:43:56
> > a behavior they find accusatory and offensive.
The full statement for which I was blocked was, "Others besides myself have tried to address this issue and ended up leaving, all for just wanting to at least modify (if not squelch) a behavior they find accusatory and offensive."
Although I did mention a particular poster in that post, the *statement* was about BEHAVIOR, not a person.
Once again, because there is only one particular poster who habitually engages in this behavior, some assume I am talking about this person whenever I talk about the BEHAVIOR. This is not surprising, since one of the published possible topics for this board is "dealing with particular posters." In fact, when I first tried to deal with this behavior, I named a particular poster from the start. But even my kick-off post on that thread started and ended with the same question: What to do about posters LIKE [a particular poster]. Even then, I was addressing essentially the BEHAVIOR, acknowledging that others may have engaged in or might yet engage in such behavior.
Finally, FWIW, my first block was for two weeks and this one was for six. I know there are others here who feel that blocks like this one are not only excessive, but also inconsistent. I don’t plan on being an active “Babbler” anymore, but I wanted to make these observations for the record. I once felt this site was administered fairly – and that it was a healthy place for mental-health consumers – but I do not feel that way any longer.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 1, 2005, at 20:46:00
In reply to Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Minnie-Haha, posted by Dr. Bob on June 18, 2005, at 1:43:56
It seems Behavior vs. Intention has been the subject of many past debates here. One example is at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20041012/msgs/407505.html (although I can’t find a post where you state your opinion on the matter).
At any rate, was my last block for behavior or intention? (I know you’ve got a 3-complaint rule now, which kind of addresses this, but I was just curious about my own case.)
Posted by gardenergirl on August 1, 2005, at 21:26:15
In reply to The post was about BEHAVIOR..., posted by Minnie-Haha on August 1, 2005, at 20:38:59
Hi Minnie,
Nice to see your name here, however briefly.I just wanted to add my two cents here, although I have no idea why.
I think when a behavior is characterized as being "accusatory and offensive", anyone who engages or has engaged in said behavior might feel put down. My interpretation is that characterizing a behavior as "offensive" is what got the block.
But I could be wrong. It's always a crapshoot trying to interpret for Dr. Bob.
At any rate, take care.
gg
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 1, 2005, at 22:27:12
In reply to Re: The post was about BEHAVIOR... » Minnie-Haha, posted by gardenergirl on August 1, 2005, at 21:26:15
> Nice to see your name here, however briefly.
>
> I just wanted to add my two cents here, although I have no idea why.
>
> I think when a behavior is characterized as being "accusatory and offensive", anyone who engages or has engaged in said behavior might feel put down. My interpretation is that characterizing a behavior as "offensive" is what got the block...Hey GG! Good to be back... briefly. This probably falls into splitting hairs, but note that what I wrote was "Others besides myself have tried to address this issue and ended up leaving, all for just wanting to at least modify (if not squelch) a behavior THEY FIND accusatory and offensive." That is to say, "I/We feel accused/offended when you/he/she behaves that way." I did not say the behave is or was accusatory or offensive... only that some "find it" (feel) that way.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 2, 2005, at 17:31:01
In reply to Re: The post was about BEHAVIOR... » gardenergirl, posted by Minnie-Haha on August 1, 2005, at 22:27:12
You don't think the people who exhibit said behaviour will feel accused / put down that you choose to view their behaviour in that way???
And that you would prefer to squelch their behaviour (ie have them change) rather than working on changing your interpretation (ie have the people who choose to feel offended own their own responses)???
It would seem to me that there are two options (though I should know better than to suggest that there are only two...). You could try to understand the pov whereby what you said wasn't acceptable and work on managing / expressing your own responses... Or you could continue to bash your head up against a brick wall trying to convince other people that you are right where the likely consequence is another Babble holiday...
Your choice.
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2005, at 4:56:13
In reply to Re: The post was about BEHAVIOR... » gardenergirl, posted by Minnie-Haha on August 1, 2005, at 22:27:12
> That is to say, "I/We feel accused/offended when you/he/she behaves that way."
That is the way to say it. :-) As an I-statement, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
Bob
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 3, 2005, at 14:31:58
In reply to Re: The post was about BEHAVIOR... » Minnie-Haha, posted by alexandra_k on August 2, 2005, at 17:31:01
> You don't think the people who exhibit said behaviour will feel accused / put down that you choose to view their behaviour in that way???
Oh, no, no, no, no, no. I won't get sucked into another debate on when one can “legitimately” feel offended and when one is simply “choosing” to feel offended. (There are rounds of discussions on the subject in the archives.) I will say this: If others may “choose” to feel accused/put-down by my “behavior” then I may “choose” to feel accused/put-down by others' behaviors.
At any rate, if you wish to make your "choice" arguments again, you can do so without me. However, THAT DOES NOT MEAN that I concede any point you are trying to make, but only that I don't wish to thrash it out again. Finally, I respectfully ask that if you decide to quote me here or from other posts, that you not pull snippets, but rather give full quotes and direct readers to the original threads. IF that is impossible, THEN I would ask that you DO NOT POST to me -- or about me, if that is a permissable request -- anymore, as I often feel harassed by your posts.
> And that you would prefer to squelch their behaviour (ie have them change) rather than working on changing your interpretation (ie have the people who choose to feel offended own their own responses)???
My preference wasn’t only “to squelch” but “modify (if not squelch)…” You see, if others feel offended by a behavior – especially a behavior that has been ongoing for years and driven off other valued posters – then I should prefer that those choosing to engage in that behavior would modify it voluntarily. However, if they don’t, then I’d prefer that Administration modify the site’s rules. Here are some recent threads on the subject:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050417/msgs/487910.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/512087.html> It would seem to me that there are two options (though I should know better than to suggest that there are only two...)…
You’re right! :-)
> You could try to understand the pov whereby what you said wasn't acceptable and work on managing / expressing your own responses...
Oh, I think I do understand that POV! But I think that no matter how well I understand it, and no matter how carefully I express myself, I can “do no right,” so to speak, on this subject, which is important to me. Many here agree that this site’s acceptability rules are rather vague and that their execution is sometimes… well, let’s say imperfect.
> ... Or you could continue to bash your head up against a brick wall trying to convince other people that you are right where the likely consequence is another Babble holiday...
>
> Your choice.Like I said three days ago, I don’t plan on being an active “Babbler” anymore. I just came here to make a few observations. And BTW: I felt put-down when I read your “You could try…” and “Or you could continue…” statements above.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on August 3, 2005, at 14:41:55
In reply to Re: The post wasn't an I-statement, posted by Dr. Bob on August 3, 2005, at 4:56:13
and many here, IMO, "get away" with that format every day, though they only seem to get PBCd or blocked for it depending on who they are, or who or what they're responding to. An apology helps too, when the other elements aren't enough.
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.