Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1100306

Shown: posts 2 to 26 of 36. Go back in thread:

 

Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l

Posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2018, at 6:27:40

In reply to Terms of participation unethical and against the l, posted by ert on August 13, 2018, at 22:32:44

> By the sentence Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish. the host claims illegal ownership.

I don't see how - but I'm certainly not familiar with the nuances of American (or any other) system of laws.

In academic contexts you can quote whatever has appeared in print without asking for permissions. You can quote it - and of course you then cite it so people can find where you found it from. You don't pass the contents off as your own.

I thought that that was what Bob was saying. That we were giving him permission to quote our posts etc in conferences and the like. At a couple of points in the history of the site people expressed concern about this and so he started particular threads for people who didn't mind saying stuff that was more particularly likely to be sited in research.

This can be contrasted with stuff where you need to ask specific permissions. To reporoduce a text box or a figure or a song. I have recently learned you can't just quote and reference such things, you need to seek permissions from the publisher (not typically the actual author lolz) in advance.

> It is the same as if someone goes to a doctor (maybe the only one in the village) and the doctor demands that participation requires the permission of given personal data to be stored and used as he wishes on his public database. It equals blackmail, violates property and data protection laws.

lolz - welcome to the New Zealand health system!!! That's exactly what we have going on here!! I just love it how they hand all our data over to (people who I know, actually) all non-anonymised so they can trawl through the 'public record' and correct this, that, and the other thing, that they don't approve of. Recoding people's ethnicities and the like.

> For example a revision could signify that participants give the host of the public database the permission to use their intellectual property as the owner wishes, the participants profile or parts of it, but only as long as the participants give their approvals. The public part of the database could be online for up to two years until it gets cleared or the participants is given the option to delete their posts themselves. The non public database as a whole containing all posts can be used by the host for research as long as the participant gives his or her permission.

It could be... I don't think Dr Bob is active here, anymore, really. I think he only leaves things up as a courtesy to those of us who still insist on coming here... I don't think he has an eye to future development. But I could be wrong. He said something about 'more to come' or whatever a while back... About making a will... About something something I don' tknow.

> Personally, I am ok of deleting parts, thus sentences or words at best right away. But it does not mean that others are ok too, and that they possess the means and power to defend themselves. Hereby, I do not question a potential therapeutical value of a public database but only the terms and how it should be operated.

How do you mean 'public database'. Do you mean the posts in the archives?

 

Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l

Posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 8:18:45

In reply to Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l, posted by alexandra_k on August 14, 2018, at 6:27:40

You could call it self-help group but it is in fact also a public database worth of particular sensitive data. It can easily harm someones personal rights. He cannot own that data and do what he wishes. by the sentence "Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish" he factually claims ownership. there maybe some differences from country to country.

 

Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l

Posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 8:28:26

In reply to Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l, posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 8:18:45

correct would be: Submitting a message gives me permission to use it as I wish but only as long as somebody wants.

 

Re: Alexandra K

Posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 9:11:11

In reply to Re: Terms of participation unethical and against the l, posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 8:28:26

this also applies regardless if the posting name is anonymous. in contrast to a medical study
in that anonymous data mostly in form of numbers is analyzed after a consent and signature of a statement by the owner or participant, this database contains complete profiles with medical histories mixed
with other data. Therefore someone also could lose anonymity.

 

Re: Alexandra K

Posted by alexandra_k on August 15, 2018, at 2:52:22

In reply to Re: Alexandra K, posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 9:11:11

There were a couple papers that were published, I think, where Dr Bob quoted posters comments. Examples of how people in the community could be helpful to one another, I think. That sort of thing. He referenced it to their posting name.

An observational study is typically thought to require less in the way of permissions than an interventional study.

Dr Bob observes us...

And... We accept that we give him permission to use our posts as he wishes when we sign up to the boards in the very first place.

I think these boards are more likely to provide anonymity to people than the significant majority of other things out there. I haven't provided my credit card details to this site. I haven't provided my phone number. I haven't given this site my address.

I personally trust Dr Bob. Because I've read some of his research stuff and read what he's had to say over the years and seen how he's interacted with other posters.

There is a ridiculous amount of complete and utter b*llsh*t out there.

The work in medical / internet ethics that Bob did however many years ago is leaps and bounds ahead of anything I've read before or since.

He's not an idiot. Bonus.

He could have insisted on google ads and so on. He could have required we give him our credit card details. He could have required a donation from us all and so on...

But he didn't... Because people really didn't seem to want those things.

And his personal bank account would have taken a hit because of it.

Only for posters to go on and provide all that to countless other websites and forums with such obviously less altruistic intention. Facebook and the like.

This doesn't address your concern, really.

The fact that there is so much worse out there to worry about doesn't make it any better...

But he warned us something of what was to come...

Thereby making it so??

Perhaps.

There's the likely future..

Invest accordinly.

Sigh.

 

Re: Alexandra K

Posted by alexandra_k on August 15, 2018, at 2:56:01

In reply to Re: Alexandra K, posted by ert on August 14, 2018, at 9:11:11

I would worry less about what Bob would do with our posts and more about what other people who can publically view all our posts would do with them.

I actually suspect the greatest harms may be caused by (and please don't even start speculating) posters who gain reputation for themselves as 'trusted advisors' to a significant number of people and thus money could be made by having such people promote certain products etc.

I suspect it would work more as a teaser or feeler... Sort of getting a sense of how social media could go on to be a viable career for people someday. You have people with websites abotu playing computer games or about whatever hobby... But strategically placed products or just a person with a lot of followers suggesting something in particular...

A sort of paid product placement.

I would think this sort of thing... If it didn't actually occur (over on the meds board, primarily) that getting a sense of things unfolding here... Well... The potential for that would become apparent to people.

 

Re: Alexandra K

Posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 7:26:12

In reply to Re: Alexandra K, posted by alexandra_k on August 15, 2018, at 2:56:01

it does not matter what dr bob says it's good, it's the law that says what matters.
as such, the terms are illegal and ethically questionable.
but it also may depend from country to country.

i think it is a good idea that his public database would eg. be cleared every year or 2nd. the partipicants also could use this babble mail option to exchange.

 

Re: Alexandra K

Posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 7:36:05

In reply to Re: Alexandra K, posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 7:26:12

it also must be taken into account that the database started many years ago when the internet just started and has not already become what it is now. Furthermore the laws adapted to new circumstances. Maybe, also some people would like to be able to forget.

 

Re: everyone should be able to build his own...

Posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 8:24:48

In reply to Re: Alexandra K, posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 7:36:05

what is, for example, when someone dies ? - Some would like to go only as ash, whereas other would maybe choose a pyramid. Those who choose a pyramid still could print out their posts and put it into a bank deposit safe.

google eg., has the autodelete timer function.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 8:50:51

In reply to Re: Alexandra K, posted by alexandra_k on August 15, 2018, at 2:52:22

especially posters. some credit deserves also dr bob (who does research). but most credit actually deserve people like ed uk and others who supported a lot with their knowledge...

There were a couple papers that were published, I think, where Dr Bob quoted posters comments. Examples of how people in the community could be helpful to one another, I think. That sort of thing. He referenced it to their posting name.
>
> An observational study is typically thought to require less in the way of permissions than an interventional study.
>
> Dr Bob observes us...
>
> And... We accept that we give him permission to use our posts as he wishes when we sign up to the boards in the very first place.
>
> I think these boards are more likely to provide anonymity to people than the significant majority of other things out there. I haven't provided my credit card details to this site. I haven't provided my phone number. I haven't given this site my address.
>
> I personally trust Dr Bob. Because I've read some of his research stuff and read what he's had to say over the years and seen how he's interacted with other posters.
>
> There is a ridiculous amount of complete and utter b*llsh*t out there.
>
> The work in medical / internet ethics that Bob did however many years ago is leaps and bounds ahead of anything I've read before or since.
>
> He's not an idiot. Bonus.
>
> He could have insisted on google ads and so on. He could have required we give him our credit card details. He could have required a donation from us all and so on...
>
> But he didn't... Because people really didn't seem to want those things.
>
> And his personal bank account would have taken a hit because of it.
>
> Only for posters to go on and provide all that to countless other websites and forums with such obviously less altruistic intention. Facebook and the like.
>
> This doesn't address your concern, really.
>
> The fact that there is so much worse out there to worry about doesn't make it any better...
>
> But he warned us something of what was to come...
>
> Thereby making it so??
>
> Perhaps.
>
> There's the likely future..
>
> Invest accordinly.
>
> Sigh.
>
>

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves... ert

Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 5:18:53

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by ert on August 15, 2018, at 8:50:51

> especially posters. some credit deserves also dr bob (who does research). but most credit actually deserve people like ed uk and others who supported a lot with their knowledge...

yeah. i think bob only cited or quoted people's posts in an attempt to portray them in a positive or good or helpful or knowledgeable light. to give them credit.

there was controversy over people liking or tweeting or reposting... because there could be this unhelpful... uncivil... laughing at or whatever sort of commentary that would not have been tolerated here...

i know that we *think* or are told that other sites remove this or that information... but, uh, why should we believe them? i don't think anything goes away anymore... i think that this place serves as something of a warning or reminder of that. a heads up.

you aren't alone in thinking that bob should delete posts.

he has sort of... hidden posts. archiving boards.

but the stuff is still here...

if you don't want to remember you don't have to look back... but it's there for those who do want to remember.

and maybe it's there so that people don't have to remember.

i don't know.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 7:14:38

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves... ert, posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 5:18:53

the question is not if he should, it is more if he must. you can't say everyone, "you don't have to look back".

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 7:23:29

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 7:14:38

> the question is not if he should, it is more if he must. you can't say everyone, "you don't have to look back".

When he does not and it is against the law, he acts unlawful. When he does reluctantly he acts irresponsibly.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 8:58:59

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 7:23:29

there also is a component of voyeurism. Someone knows what illnesses they have, what they ate, can assume their social status, maybe the places where they were, their family affairs, what pets they have... The medical data is connected with all sort of things. (I dont want to suggest that dr bob started this because of voyeurism). the problem is not that the database exists, but that it can barely deleted by posters and it dates back (i don't know), before the year 2000 (?). also, someone maybe got cured or symptoms lessened substantially and they want to cut off from the past. One suggestion is that the public database could be cleared every year or up to five years or so. That would also guarantee that when somebody dies, the data will disappear.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves... ert

Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 18:36:21

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 8:58:59

> Someone knows what illnesses they have, what they ate, can assume their social status, maybe the places where they were, their family affairs, what pets they have...

But why would someone bother to try and collate all that information from masses and masses of text on this site when one could so very much more easily get that from Facebook or from random surveys that people choose to click through, or whatever.

> One suggestion is that the public database could be cleared every year or up to five years or so. That would also guarantee that when somebody dies, the data will disappear.

But the Facebook and Survey data isn't going anywhere. Just because you think something has been deleted, just because a site hides what you wanted deleted from you, doesn't mean other people don't have access to it, anymore.

What law do you think Dr Bob is violating in not pulling the site down?

I don't understand.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 18:43:25

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves... ert, posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 18:36:21

I mean, think about bank data. That's how much money you have coming in, and all the outgoings. Do you have a supermarket card? That's itemisation of everything you purchase. You can match that to things like which items were on special and product placement and so on if you cared to (pretty sure that's what the supermarket cards are for). Then you have peoples facebook posts - what they like and so on. You have information about their product purchases (including medications). You can get health information from health information billing administrative systems...

The companies with the Software... I think it would be disingeuous to think that they weren't profiting from the data they have...

But from that kind of point of view...

What would this site add to the picture?

I don't know how much things are a mess, really, with collating various things. I know it is likely that there is a dearth of expertise, really, and thus pretty likely that things do work together at the end of the day (like how in this part of the world, anyway, there aren't changes to the make up of parliament or parliamentary advisors and so on from one election to the next in total disregard of who wins the damned thing). So I would expect there would likely be more.

And it's all billing or administrative data. So it's not protected as being anything special...

I think it is actuaries. Health insurance companies. Big data, sure. Stuff about distributing risk. Basically about protecting the few at the expense of the many. Future projections... Get whatever whatever to buy in... And now the situation is that the future must simply come to be. Whether the future be that many people will need to live in aged care institutions or the future will be that most of them will be indigenous or whatever... People just... Accept it.

People just accept that politicans and people on councils and boards earn so very much money... Just take it. Just take it from the tax money that was (for the most part) taken from other people. People accept it. Like to like and follow these people. Admire them. Want to be them.

I don't know how they live with themselves.

But they do.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 19:52:17

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 18:43:25

I've got Stats NZ people harrassing me, now.

They used to have a website which said that individuals had the right to be communicated with in the form of communication they prefer.

So I said that I didn't want to let a surveyer in my house or have a yak to them for 40 minutes to complete this survey on how I spend my money. That they can leave paper forms and I'll fill them out and post them back.

So they updated their webpage to remove all reference to people having the right to be communicated with in the manner they prefer (where written English is reasonable, fairly sure about that) and now i'ts just... Bully content. About how they have the right to send people out and you have to participate by law.

Does the government really not have better things to be spending their money on? Just think of the houses they could buy and the central heaters they could install and how they could rent them to people at an affordable amount...

But, no, they want to hire bully people to go around banging on people's doors demanding entry to their personal property so they can sit down with them for 40 minutes and hear all about how they spend their money while tap tap tapping it all into their form fields that make it impossible (once again) for people to actually say anything about how they actually do spend their money (or want to convey that they do).

I would imagine it's really about what people will say to the bully-person in front of them compared with what people actually do via their bank records and supermarket records and so on. I would imagine that it is.

I think it is $600 not to participate. I suspect a lot of people just eat that.

I hate this f*ck*ng country.

 

Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves...

Posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 19:56:36

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 19:52:17

Or maybe it is about how the presence of the surveyer bully person in your face gets you changing your spending behavior. Maybe that is it. Maybe it is like how if you *say* you will vote for a particular party on a survey then you become committed to that, which makes it more likely to occur... Wait, that apparently didn't work so well...

Or that's what they want us to believe.

It's just f*ck*ng tiresome.

You can bet the politicians aren't being randomly surveyed to sit down with a surveyer and tell them all about how they spend their \$250,000+ per year. You can just bet they don't have to do this.

You can also bet that when the Prime Minister gives birth in a public hospital she's not spending her time hanging out on the open ward with all the other new mums and their friends and family all hanging about with their phones livestreaming for y'all.

What a f*ck*ng farce.

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 23:12:53

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, credit deserves..., posted by alexandra_k on August 16, 2018, at 19:56:36

For my ears you sound like a fairly naive, lovely young lady. But maybe I am wrong. Young people deserve special protection. They can post things that they dont want. They are vulnerable, they cant outguess the consequences of their decision and actions.

This is not a supermarket card and not facebook. On supermarket cards turnover of nutritional products is saved, on facebook you can delete data and you can delete an account, its not just the surveyor in nz its about the Chinese, Americans, the Spaniards, coworkers, departments and even more. Here is other data saved than that.

He violates intellectual property rights, sensitive personal data rights (depending on country), personally identifiable information (PII) and newly EU right to be forgotten.

I dont want to point out only negative aspects here, but if its possible someone should act according to the boundaries that the law sets.

The laws also adapted to new circumstances in the recent twenty years. I dont want to blame him here only, because of the fact that he started this project almost twenty years ago.

If you think he could make money, due to the altruistic behavior of sick participants and ads pop up from eg. pfizer or glaxo, the project would be even more ethically questionable. And a psychiatrist is at least middleclass or more.

The quality of a database is one thing, the property rights and personal rights of individuals another. A database can be archived and saved personally, printed out or downloaded with tools like Cyotek Webcopy.

I am sorry that you got harassed by stat people in nz. Thanks for having you from nz. Take care.

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2018, at 17:15:25

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, posted by ert on August 16, 2018, at 23:12:53

> On supermarket cards turnover of nutritional products is saved

*What* you buy is saved. How much milk do you buy? How much cheese? Are you brand loyal to some / most / all or will you change your brand if there is a discount. How much is your 'favorite' brand worth to you? How much will you substitute another product, entirely, for a discount?

You might think that they only care about things en masse, and not about particular purchasers...

But some purchasers turn out to be predictive of the behavior of certain other groups. It can be cheaper and easier to track particular purchasers, therefore. In the interests of... Tricking them so that one can turn greater profits.

And some purchasers turn out to be particularly 'rational' or whatever. There might be interests in learning more about people who seem particularly in control (shall we say) of their supermarket purchasing. One might have a special interest in how they spend the rest of their money...

> on facebook you can delete data and you can delete an account

On facebook you can *ask for data to be deleted* and the data is no longer visible to you, or to people you know. Do you really think your data is actually removed from facebook and the people facebook have passed your data on to? Similarly, you an ask for an account to be deleted and you can no longer log into it and it is no longer visible to people you know. That certainly doesn't mean that a whole bunch of people can't view what you posted before.

Including your request that things be deleted. People might well have a special interest in those who decide to opt out. Might want to track these people, particularly. Like how it has been noted, now, on my HealthOne health record that I asked to opt out of having a HealthOne record. It is my right to ask to opt out and have my dissent noted there, you see. At which point they inform me that I might not be able to get the healthcare I need from the public system, anymore. Of course, I wasn't likely to have gotten it before, anyway. But they appear to have a special interest in tagging and tracking dissentors.

> its not just the surveyor in nz

Of course it's not. For better, or worse. Our supermarket check-out system in the major supermarkets (New World, Countdown, Pack and Save) is Norwegan. The Health Administrative Data was... I tracked it around the world, a bit. Companies that are subsidaries of other companies and so on... It got lost somewhere in America - though I'm sure liability stops somewhere where there aren't any laws

US Health data was hacked by Russians. US... Something something about Russian Doctors and performance enhancing drug prescriptions and the Olympics...

> He violates intellectual property rights, sensitive personal data rights (depending on country), personally identifiable information (PII) and newly EU right to be forgotten.

?
Reference?

> If you think he could make money, due to the altruistic behavior of sick participants and ads pop up from eg. pfizer or glaxo, the project would be even more ethically questionable. And a psychiatrist is at least middleclass or more.

I think he could have chosen to have done such things with this site. After there was an article in the New York Times there was (and would have been predicted to be) a boon in posting numbers. I'm pretty sure he could have made money off of ads. But he chose not to. That says something about him as a person, I think. Quite a lot. Not many have made such choices with the sites they run.

I sympathise a lot about privacy concerns and so on... I guess I just don't understand what people are likely to gain from here, particularly. And what you think is to be gained by tearing the whole site down.

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2018, at 18:10:44

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2018, at 17:15:25

It is because I studied psychology at an undergraduate university that was fairly focused on animal behavior and organisational psychology.

as such, we learned quite a lot about behaviorism - even though since then cognitive psychology, and more lately, neuro psychology have become the prominent focus.

but if we consider much of what we know about behavior and the control of behavior from psychology... and we apply that stuff to marketing and management... and we consider statistics and the power of computing these days...

which is why most universities don't teach behaviorism anymore, i suppose.

even a lot of the cognitive psychology techniques. how to 'persuade' people to do what you want them to without them even knowing.

bullying techniques. bait and switch techniques. and so on...

it's all old news. old old old news. but they don't teach it in the schools, anymore, and most people don't seem to realise.

many of the bullying techniques. having burly men walking about with 'security' written on their back telling people to display their ID or to move along... getting all up in people's faces and so on...

the lack of leagal advice.

or 'legal advice' which consists of scripts of 'information' nobody asked for and no time for people to ask about the things they want to know (nobody knowlegable - AskLegal - so all the idiot unemployable lawyers can be employed to mislead and waylay and data collect so those who need to hire actual lawyers to conceal their wrong are given the approriate heads up well in advance).

people care more about these things than about creating a world even they feel is worth living in. or... in creatin a world they feel is good for their kids to live in.

that's partly the thing about kids. they are saying that having kids keeps people off drugs and the like. clearly since i didn't have kids i'm a noisy druggy. yeah, NZ, you know me so well.

f*ck*ng idoits.

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2018, at 18:19:09

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2018, at 18:10:44

i never used to think that other people were idiots, or whatever.

but they really went over and above when it came to hiring particular people to do particular jobs.

i know it's not socially acceptable to say anything. but that's a method of controlling people. you don't complain about the incompetent doctor or lawyer or teacher or librarian or whatever. it wouldn't be polite. they are lovely. they are doing their best. that's what you say. you rate that you are 'satisfied' with their service.

so the manager gets to go 'see - we don't need to hire skilled, qualified people, the masses can't even tell the difference! we can literally hire the unskilled and incompetent people of the world and we can hire, like, 4 or 5 for the price of a skilled and competent one!'

or... when skilled and competent people are rare, they can collect them me-wards. into the private hospitals and schools that the can afford with all the money they saved!

and the other people can't tell the difference. or, care more about being polite than they care about their own or their childrens or their family and friends education and healthcare and so on.

right?

everyones happy??

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by ert on August 18, 2018, at 8:38:30

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2018, at 18:19:09

in one of the supermarket chains "New World, Countdown, Pack and Save", they maybe need psychologists, Alexandra K from NZ.

He takes responsibility only for his posts, can and would delete it, but he does not take responsibility for the intellectual property of others and would not delete, even if it is against the law and they could get harmed or even harassed.
but you're right Alexandra K, it is costless. Probably it can help you. but it does not mean that there is no room for improvement.

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2018, at 19:24:57

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, posted by ert on August 18, 2018, at 8:38:30

> even if it is against the law..

what law?

do you have the particular act or section or whatever?

 

Re: to alexandra_k

Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2018, at 20:35:28

In reply to Re: to alexandra_k, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2018, at 19:24:57

https://www.consumer.org.nz/articles/supermarket-psychology

actually two supermarket chains (I learned something).

they already have hired organisational psychologists.

there's a lot more that goes into the product placement / tracking now they can more readily collet up all the purchase information, though.

and things they can do with eye gaze tracking software and the like. the strategic use of loudspeaker advertisements. the strategic use of phantom shoppers (notice how when most people seem stuck to make a choice if someone dives in and grabs something swiftly the stuck peron will copy).

and so on.

it just makes shopping a really unpleasant sort of an experience. like trying to avoid mines walking through a minefield. i guess that's why you make a list and ignore discounts (or have a list of 'only if discounted' or whatever. but what you need only when it is discounted rather than when you need to replace)


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.