![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 64 to 88 of 134. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 16:07:43
In reply to Re: An idea already, Dr. Bob » Dinah, posted by partlycloudy on July 27, 2005, at 16:03:44
You do too. :)
Posted by Nickengland on July 27, 2005, at 16:42:49
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2005, at 11:51:10
>Well, I know he doesn't give me virtual hugs..
LOL Yep, thats one way to put it I guess!
>but if he exposes problems with the administration, that could help the site, couldn't it?
Very true. I do agree totally.
Is the help perhaps, the wrong kind of help though? More trouble seemed to arise last time. It could be like 10% of help could be gained, whereas 90% of trouble is started..
Does the help outweigh the un-helpfullness? (of course my percentages are rough guess')
Kind regards
Nick
Posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 17:12:01
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2005, at 11:51:10
Dr. Bob,
thanks for taking the time to read & respond to our messages. I appreciate it! It's nice to know that I was heard, even if you don't agree.I don't mind co-existing with people who have different outlooks and beliefs than I do; in fact, I think it makes life more interesting and varied. And I learn and grow from it.
But I DO mind co-existing with people who seem unwilling to debate in a logical fashion, or who seem to enjoy stirring up trouble simply for the sake of the trouble, or with people who are just jerks. Some people really ARE just jerks, you know!
Maybe there is a psychological reason for the jerkiness, including traumatic childhood, abuse, chemical imbalances, genetics, etc -- but it doesn't make the person in question any less jerky! And it doesn't make me want to spend time with them!
In all honesty I'm not really such a "gentle soul" that I can't handle the admin board. I just get frustrated by certain posts. I know that ignoring it is a viable option.
But it sort of reminds me of this: Imagine a kid on the playground who is tossing stones at another kid. The other kid is yelping and crying. Certainly the stones are not hitting ME. I could easily walk away, unharmed. But something about the situation impels me to do something and stop the stone-throwing. I reason it out like this: If I let the stone-throwing go on, it's possible that the thrower will gain confidence in his strength and will only increase his stone activities over time. Maybe in the future he will expand his stone operation to include me or my loved ones as a target. And the person getting hit will see bystanders watching silently and will feel worse. Possibly he will become warped by the situation, or angered. It seems that it's better for the society as a whole to stop the stone-throwers. (Esp. if I'm not put into mortal danger by trying to help! If I were in such danger, my outlook and actions might change.)
I kind of see certain posters as stone-throwers, as bullies. I wish we could stop them from being so disruptive. I guess I have patience up to a point, then I snap. What's the point, I think to myself, of hoping and wheedling and coaxing and sweet-talking a person who is just not listening?
It also drives me NUTS when other posters act all sweet and kind and understanding towards the 'mean' posters. What is THAT supposed to accomplish, I wonder to myself. Is it a way to try and ingratiate oneself with the bully, hoping to avoid future trauma? Is it a way to try and befriend the bully so as to be the important ONE who understands him/her? Is it a way to be shocking? Is it a way to be different? It is a fascination with power and abuse? --Of course, Dr. Bob, I don't expect you to answer these questions! They're questions I'm thinking "aloud" (atype?).
I agree that SOME people are not aware of the consequences of their behavior, including people with certain disorders of the brain, and "normal" people who are on the thoughtless or unaware side of the equation. BUT - I think there are other people who know exactly what consequences they will derive from certain actions, words and phrases, or people who hope for certain consequences. And I know it's not a 100% guarantee that one can tell this from posts alone, but I think we can give it a decent shot at times. I also think that posters who come back again and again, with new names, but always the same agenda -- those people clearly know what they want to accomplish and are aware of the consequences that they hope to achieve and will achieve.
But I agree to disagree, and I like Babble, and of course I plan to stay here! Thanks for encouraging us to stay here even if we disagree. It's really nice to hear you say that. And I like Babble a lot, even if there are troubled posters and even if things get rocky from time to time! And even if I'M rocky from time to time!
Thanks for letting me vent!
JenStar
Posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 17:15:42
In reply to thanks for replying! More of my thoughts... » Dr. Bob, posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 17:12:01
hi all,
I hope my previous post didn't offend anyone. I re-read it and it sounds rather strident, which is honestly how I am feeling. BUT I wanted to make it clear that I am venting and sharing my feelings, and in no way was attempting to upset anyone here. Thanks for listening!
jenStar
Posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2005, at 17:16:55
In reply to An idea already, Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 14:30:40
How 'bout if people are required to register with a "permanent" email address. Meaning that gmail, hotmail, etc aren't allowed. People change their ISP fairly infrequently and this might cut down the number of times a person can come back with a different name.
It's not that hard to change an IP address.
Posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 17:39:45
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2005, at 11:51:10
Posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 17:58:59
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2005, at 17:16:55
I think that it is nice that we are allowed second chances. And third chances. And so on... I would imagine that anyone who keeps up that sort of behaviour would get onto the 3X blocking system fairly quick so their negative impact would be minimised. And the block lengths mean that people get some time to 'come right' in between being able to post.
I think it is especially nice that we are allowed second and third and fourth chances etc because this is a mental health board. I'm not suggesting that this is what is going on in this particular case - but I do want to suggest that we just don't know. Sometimes people do have episodes. Where they have forgotten to take their meds or whatever. They might start taking them again and come to sincerely regret their actions later. Who here hasn't done something they regret? I don't know where I'd be in the world if people just wanted me gone on the basis of an episode...
I agree that it is hard when people post things like that about the boards. This has happened before though. About Dr Bob being sued, about the closure of the boards. That seemed to be dealt with by posters okay... Posters managed to reassure each other that things were okay. I think we should have faith that things are okay. Especially those of us who have been here for a while. Lots of sh*t happens over on admin lots of sh*t and the boards have survived and so has Dr Bob.
It is hard...Because if you throw someone out because of saying things about Dr Bob or the boards then that just looks worse at the end of the day. It looks worse for all those people who might just have a little niggle that there is something to what is being said. It might start to look like a cover up. And if that happens... Well, then I expect we would get a lot more of that.
So isn't here to stir sh*t. Or, I can say definately that he isn't *just* here to stir sh*t because I have had interesting conversations with him.
But... What happened is unfortunate.
And it is a shame that he seemed to turn on other posters.(((Dinah)))
I guess that is something that can happen in virtue of the deputy role. It must be really hard...
I hope the good helps balance some of that.
Because you help a lot of people here.
And if you hadn't been able to block him when you did then the conversation probably would have escalated so even more babblers would have ended up blocked.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 18:20:08
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 17:58:59
I think the one year block cap is Dr. Bob's desire to give someone a second or third chance. I'm not sure I approve, because once you hit a year, you're free to do just about anything.
I also think people wonder just how many people want to shut down Babble and Dr. Bob. This being the internet, there's no real way to know is there?
I think Mel's idea is a good one.
I haven't been particularly hurt by a poster in some time. Well, not on purpose anyway. The people I've given power to hurt me haven't chosen to use it. Bless them.
Second and third chances are all well and good. If no one stands to be hurt by them.
Posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 19:00:09
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2005, at 17:16:55
I think this is a great idea!
JenStar
Posted by Deneb on July 27, 2005, at 19:23:18
In reply to Re: stated purpose, posted by Dr. Bob on July 27, 2005, at 11:51:10
> I'm not sure what you mean, what rules and what agreement? He needs to email me himself or herself, and I'll post something if I do shorten it?
You did it again Dr. Bob! "'He' needs to email...herself,..."
LOL :P
> I understand that. But I think it would be nice to find some way to co-exist, too.
Just like in real life!
> Well, I know he doesn't give me virtual hugs, but if he exposes problems with the administration, that could help the site, couldn't it?
>
> BobI like the way you think. Thanks for being you. You're way more enlightened than me. I think it's important to be able to take "criticism" and handle it in a constructive way.
Deneb
P.S. No idealization here :o)
Posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 20:31:26
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 18:20:08
>once you hit a year, you're free to do just about anything.
yeah. once a year you could go off. but i'm not sure how likely it would be that someone would harbor such a grudge for say... 7 years. and even if they did that would be say... 7 episodes.
i guess there is the point that people may be prevented from posting because of their past behaviour. people who would learn things here and / or who have something positive to contribute. while it is true that we don't want people here who aren't going to do either of those things how much do we judge them on the basis of past behaviour? is it better to block people 'just in case'? or is it better to give someone another chance and have a repeat occurance? i reckon give people a chance. they'll get blocked if they blow it. after a while the blocks will be one year long and they won't have all that much of an opportunity to do much damage till they get blocked again.
i kind of like the idea that babble might be a bit more accepting than RL. because it is safer here. here the danger is in words words words. while words can harm its a bit different from someone being thumped or something.
> I also think people wonder just how many people want to shut down Babble and Dr. Bob. This being the internet, there's no real way to know is there?you could conduct a poll...
but then all those blocked people out there would probably want a say too ;-)
i really wouldn't worry too much abotu that.
i mean...
i'm well aware some posters here would prefer me to not be here (anonymous emails)
but i don't let it bug me too much.
you can please some of the people some of the time...
and some people have their own issues.> I think Mel's idea is a good one.
yes. because i trust the server now. i wouldn't have initially signed up if i couldn't use an anonymous email address because i was verrrrrrry fussy about my confidentiality. that was one of the issues people had with having to register with uni email accounts to the students board.
> Second and third chances are all well and good. If no one stands to be hurt by them.yeah.... but.... i do wonder about the people who find it hard to get along on babble. i wonder whether RL is much much harder for them. and i worry... that it just might be.
if i could take all the hurt i would
but i can't
i guess i just think it is worth it.
babble has made a huge difference in my life and i wouldn't want to deny anyone else that opportunity.
and i'd gladly feel a bit hurt of pissed off or whatever with them if it meant that they gained something worthwhile from being here too.of course i say that now because i am in a relatively good mood ;-)
Posted by pinkeye on July 27, 2005, at 21:02:28
In reply to Re:Another idea, posted by AuntieMel on July 27, 2005, at 17:16:55
Becuase I don't have one other than my work email, and I don't want to use it for registering in online discussion forums. I really like the idea of registering with hotmail/yahoo/gmail..
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 21:48:12
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 27, 2005, at 20:31:26
Shrug. I guess it's one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree about. If it helps any, I think Dr. Bob agrees with you.
(I'm sorry about the anonymous emails. That must hurt a lot. If they're uncivil, you can forward them to Dr. Bob, you know.)
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:51:00
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 21:48:12
> (I'm sorry about the anonymous emails. That must hurt a lot. If they're uncivil, you can forward them to Dr. Bob, you know.)
Yeah, I've had them too, maybe it's a babble right of passage.They don't really bother me, except on principal.
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:52:53
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 21:48:12
> (I'm sorry about the anonymous emails. That must hurt a lot. If they're uncivil, you can forward them to Dr. Bob, you know.)When I forwarded e-mails to Bob from a poster here, ones that did bother me, because I felt harassed. Dr. Bob told me he didn't get involved with e-mails.
Which is fine, I can understand Dr. Bob's feelings on that, but I just wanted to clarify.
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 23:14:32
In reply to thanks for replying! More of my thoughts... » Dr. Bob, posted by JenStar on July 27, 2005, at 17:12:01
>
>
> I kind of see certain posters as stone-throwers, as bullies. I wish we could stop them from being so disruptive. I guess I have patience up to a point, then I snap. What's the point, I think to myself, of hoping and wheedling and coaxing and sweet-talking a person who is just not listening?
>
> It also drives me NUTS when other posters act all sweet and kind and understanding towards the 'mean' posters. What is THAT supposed to accomplish, I wonder to myself. Is it a way to try and ingratiate oneself with the bully, hoping to avoid future trauma? Is it a way to try and befriend the bully so as to be the important ONE who understands him/her? Is it a way to be shocking? Is it a way to be different? It is a fascination with power and abuse? --Of course, Dr. Bob, I don't expect you to answer these questions! They're questions I'm thinking "aloud" (atype?).
>Or gee, maybe they just like the person?
Nice is often defined by whose ox is being gored. Mental illness doesn't always present itself in ways that charm, perhaps some can relate to others better, and aren't as bothered by the things others find so offensive.
You can't label someone "Mean" or a Bully and expect everyone else to have the same opinion, and therefore having ulterior motives for being
conversatsional.
I have found lots of things to be mean and cruel that on the surface pass the civility guidelines, but that doesn't mean my feelings aren't valid. Does that mean I think that everyone else should take offense too? Hardly.
Or is it that someone offends lots of people, so somehow there's justification for expecting that they be ostracized by everyone?
Not in my world.
I've even felt harassed by off board e-mails, and people knew about it, I didn't expect everyone to suddenly ostracize the person.I can't understand why, if it's up to Dr. Bob whether or not the person is posting, why it would bother you who speaks to who? Your feelings are your own.
Posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 23:44:22
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:52:53
Hmmm...
I don't care for that much. I mean, I know he can't police them, but...
Well, he's the only one who can do anything at all.
Still, that explains the deputy email thing better.
Guess I've been lucky not to receive that particular rite of passage. I don't think I've gotten any anonymous emails at all.
I too disapprove of them on principle. If someone has something to say to me, I'd prefer they do it under their own posting name.
Posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 23:58:52
In reply to Re:Another idea » gabbii, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 23:44:22
> I too disapprove of them on principle. If someone has something to say to me, I'd prefer they do it under their own posting name.
Yes, that's what makes them not hurtful to me.
I've always thought anonymous notes (whether left by co-workers, or e-mail, or whatever the situation) are highly indicitive of the character of the person who sends them.
And that alone is enough to make me disregard what they may think of me, or even take it as a compliment.
Posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2005, at 0:16:37
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 27, 2005, at 21:48:12
> Shrug. I guess it's one of those things we'll have to agree to disagree about.
I can't begin to even try and say how I feel when people say that...
I thought a string of letters might do it...
But nope, I just can't seem to capture it.NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAAAAAAAAAOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKKKKKK.
Did that help?
Helped me a little ;-)> If they're uncivil, you can forward them to Dr. Bob, you know.
Yeah. But they are emails so what are you going to do? I'm not all that bothered actually. I agree that the anonymous thing sucks. But aside from that... If you can't say anything nice. I'd prefer people to just ignore me if they have a problem with me really.
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:32:55
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by alexandra_k on July 28, 2005, at 0:16:37
Agree to disagree?
I'm rather fond of it.
Because people hardly ever change their minds, and trying to get them to change their minds just causes bad feelings.
So why not just respect that each person has the right to believe what they choose to believe. Especially in something as subjective as this.
I mean, there's something to be said on each side. I weight one more strongly than the other, you weight the other more strongly.
It's not even like gated communities or anything.
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:36:13
In reply to Re:Another idea » Dinah, posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 22:51:00
Anonymous emails? How is that possible? Aren't all emails supposed to be tagged with our names & ID's and all that?
I'm sorry you guys are getting or have received hurtful anonymous emails. That's awful! I have not received anything like that...you should def. forward it to Dr. Bob. He may be able to extricate some of the tagging data to find who it's from.
JenStar
Posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:38:21
In reply to Re:Another idea » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on July 28, 2005, at 0:32:55
To me anyway.
I shouldn't assume that you don't have a strong moral stance about the topic.
But I don't really.
I can see why you think it's best to give people multiple chances. I don't disagree exactly, but I sort of think that after the first few chances, future ones ought to be earned. With the three R's. Regret, taking Responsibility, and attempting to make Repairs.
But I don't think you have to agree with me. And I don't feel all that strongly about it to want to argue the point.
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:58:51
In reply to Re: thanks for replying! More of my thoughts... » JenStar, posted by gabbii on July 27, 2005, at 23:14:32
gabbii,
are you saying that you like so? If this is true, I'd be interested to see your reasoning. If I've overlooked something obvious, please point it out so that I can reconsider. As a reference point, here are a few tidbits from his/her recent posts. These are the ones that upset me and other posters. Did you not find these posts upsetting? Do you like these posts and how they made other people feel?I explained why these posts upset me, so I won't do it again. Suffice to say -- they did upset me.
-- everything below is cut & pasted from so's recent posts ---
"Hsiung is a self-professed supporter of Al Queda -- as demonstrated by his favoritism toward Al Queda, a group organized by psychiatrists, sanctioning people for calling Al Queda suicide recruiters "monsterous" but allowing people to call those "creepy" who expose Al Queda's psuedoscientific leadership.""The string of suicidal deaths among former guests of this site is evidence of his covert desire to see others' lives crumble, while he revels in the wealth and power afforded those who support chemical manufacturers"
"Yours are more than a little wet, crushed out. They are so wet with excited sick sexual glee you can't help but boast about it in public."
"You need to think about the harm this pseudodoctor has done to you and find someone who will lead you on recovery before the gleeful mood swings he and his bag of tricks causes lead you to suicide. "
"Exactly. you have an inablity to distinguish right from wrong, which is evidence that you might be criminally insance."
"Maybe you need to attend a few lynchings, or watch a few people recover from jail house abuse, Crushed out, so you will understand what you are doing when you buddy up to a sick authority then beg them to use their illegitimate power to harm people. "
"Others, like GG, crushed out, SarahT, and a couple dozen more exhibit persistant and increasing tendencies to attack others, all the while using your arbitrary and capricious administration to protect their spreading pathology as it expresses in your forum.
I could as easily describe this psychiatrist's manipulative behavior as a disorder, and clearly he has created a situation where he has free reign to externalize his mental disease, but i think it is more productive to identify his behavior for what it is -- malicious self-centered bigotry.
""I am certain he has the capacity to recognize right from wrong but long ago succeeded in silencing his conscience in favor of of the privilage of power over others. "
"But there is nothing beyond the sad kissy-face suck-up of his loyal minion/victims to offer evidence of any efficacy of this approach"
"Robert Hsiung has demonstrated a persistant arrogance in administration of this site that reveals his lack of qualification to practice any form of medicine, much less medicine affecting the mind."
Posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 1:01:09
In reply to these posts didn't upset you at all? » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:58:51
I'm upset right now and I'm starting to post things that I may regret later. I'm going to take a little break.
take care!
JenStar
Posted by gabbii on July 28, 2005, at 1:35:16
In reply to these posts didn't upset you at all? » gabbii, posted by JenStar on July 28, 2005, at 0:58:51
> gabbii,
>I hadn't realized we were talking about So in particular, I've seen other times where people (other than I) have been criticized for speaking to someone who others dislike.
As for the posts, I saw few posts of So's
That weren't responded to or more likely posts initiated to him that weren't worded in kind or worse by other posters.
Often the topic he broached wasn't addressed, the critique could be his posting style, the way he used language, or really anything else available, and *that* I found offensive.
The reaction to what he said, bothered me as much if not more than anything said by him.
I don't believe that's ever justified. If you don't like someone and can't be direct about it.
Just don't post to them.In one situation, I did indeed say something, where I saw something unprovoked. I will not stay silent when I see someone I care about being treated unfairly and I haven't in this case either.
I don't need to explain whether or not I *like* so, or reason it to anyone.What I'm saying, as I said before, is that I've often been offended by things said on the board,
but don't need to ask others to defend their reasons for not disliking the poster in question.
People who post more regularly on the board have said similar things about Dr. Bob, I don't think it's good for the board in that case either, but they've certainly not been spoken to the way he was. Dr. Bob obviously saw beyond that to other qualities as well.
I will say, that I appreciate much of what he said in individual posts, he's extremely intelligent.
He posted a song for Deneb, helped another poster with her cat and electrical troubles,
my interaction with him was always extremely interesting and very "civil, because I was interested in what was being said, not who was saying it, that was my entire motive for being "sweet" I was interested..
People were disrupted, he got blocked, fair enough, I'm not giving the "okay" to the upset it caused.
I've seen people forgive those who murdered their children, and those around them say it's beautiful, but those same people can't forgive a waiter who's having a bad day until they see Oprah raving about the Dalai Lama or something.
It's not explainable to those who don't understand it, it's not something I expect everyone to do, certainly I'm accustomed to people attributing ulterior motives to something very simple, sometimes those it's hardest to love are those that need it the most, and sometimes that feeling comes very easily and I'm not going to ignore it because of popular opinion. (I'm not speaking specifically of So here)
It's not better it's different.like so? If this is true, I'd be interested to see your reasoning. If I've overlooked something obvious, please point it out so that I can reconsider. As a reference point, here are a few tidbits from his/her recent posts. These are the ones that upset me and other posters. Did you not find these posts upsetting? Do you like these posts and how they made other people feel?
>
> I explained why these posts upset me, so I won't do it again. Suffice to say -- they did upset me.
>
> -- everything below is cut & pasted from so's recent posts ---
>
>
> "Hsiung is a self-professed supporter of Al Queda -- as demonstrated by his favoritism toward Al Queda, a group organized by psychiatrists, sanctioning people for calling Al Queda suicide recruiters "monsterous" but allowing people to call those "creepy" who expose Al Queda's psuedoscientific leadership."
>
> "The string of suicidal deaths among former guests of this site is evidence of his covert desire to see others' lives crumble, while he revels in the wealth and power afforded those who support chemical manufacturers"
>
> "Yours are more than a little wet, crushed out. They are so wet with excited sick sexual glee you can't help but boast about it in public."
>
> "You need to think about the harm this pseudodoctor has done to you and find someone who will lead you on recovery before the gleeful mood swings he and his bag of tricks causes lead you to suicide. "
>
> "Exactly. you have an inablity to distinguish right from wrong, which is evidence that you might be criminally insance."
>
> "Maybe you need to attend a few lynchings, or watch a few people recover from jail house abuse, Crushed out, so you will understand what you are doing when you buddy up to a sick authority then beg them to use their illegitimate power to harm people. "
>
> "Others, like GG, crushed out, SarahT, and a couple dozen more exhibit persistant and increasing tendencies to attack others, all the while using your arbitrary and capricious administration to protect their spreading pathology as it expresses in your forum.
>
> I could as easily describe this psychiatrist's manipulative behavior as a disorder, and clearly he has created a situation where he has free reign to externalize his mental disease, but i think it is more productive to identify his behavior for what it is -- malicious self-centered bigotry.
> "
>
> "I am certain he has the capacity to recognize right from wrong but long ago succeeded in silencing his conscience in favor of of the privilage of power over others. "
>
> "But there is nothing beyond the sad kissy-face suck-up of his loyal minion/victims to offer evidence of any efficacy of this approach"
>
> "Robert Hsiung has demonstrated a persistant arrogance in administration of this site that reveals his lack of qualification to practice any form of medicine, much less medicine affecting the mind."
>
>
>
>
>
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.