![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 118 to 142 of 536. Go back in thread:
Posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 17:11:01
In reply to Re: a quiet park on a lake, by an open field, posted by Dr. Bob on January 26, 2005, at 0:38:03
I moved to a small town once when I was a kid. If you weren't third generation you didn't have a chance. Even the kids were that way. Exclusionary..............I didn't like being excluded.
On the other hand, one time while house hunting we heard of a neighborhood that sounded perfect for us. When we drove up and found out it was gated, we turned around. We didn't want to live where friends couldn't just drop by..............I don't want to exclude others either.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2005, at 18:15:28
In reply to Small town? Gated community? Ick to both!!!! » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 17:11:01
I really am puzzled why people are SO VERY opposed to the notion.
This seems to be bringing up really strong feelings / memories of being excluded / rejected and so forth.
Some people may like to have the opportunity to be a member of a smaller board.
I would like to have a go.
But I think I would be a little afraid to take up the opportunity even if it were offered knowing just how vehemently some people are opposed to the notion.Is it just me, or have things been a little quiter over on 2000 too?
(Nosey, nosey me).
Posted by Jai Narayan on January 26, 2005, at 23:04:17
In reply to Re: Dinah Jai, posted by AuntieMel on January 26, 2005, at 8:52:26
thank you.
It's good to hear from you again.
I feel your comments about me reflect your good heart.
yours
Ja*
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 27, 2005, at 22:16:12
In reply to Re: Small town? Gated community?, posted by alexandra_k on January 26, 2005, at 18:15:28
I don't know but here is a thought. I was always in person the cheerleader popular kinda gal....but say YOU or *I* am put into a group of people in this small town we do not LIKE at all..no matter how much we want to like them. It could be bad and what about learning from those who share all views? The whole idea stinks IMO and well I know youre not from the USA but it reeks of the blacks and whites riding on a different bus..to me.
It would be shocking if some of the cliques were broken up and stuck with people they obviously avoid posting to. Just a thought...again it is Bobs board and his call.> I really am puzzled why people are SO VERY opposed to the notion.
>
> This seems to be bringing up really strong feelings / memories of being excluded / rejected and so forth.
>
> Some people may like to have the opportunity to be a member of a smaller board.
>
> I would like to have a go.
> But I think I would be a little afraid to take up the opportunity even if it were offered knowing just how vehemently some people are opposed to the notion.
>
> Is it just me, or have things been a little quiter over on 2000 too?
>
> (Nosey, nosey me).
>
>
>
>
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
In reply to Re: Small town? Gated community? » alexandra_k, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 27, 2005, at 22:16:12
> I won't presume to know what the concept means to you, but if I had to venture a guess, I would say that they would not really be "gated communities" or a "quiet park on a lake", but rather nice, cozy rooms. Kinda of like what happens at a house party - people start breaking off into smaller groups to different rooms to have more intimate conversations, while maintaining the comfortable notion that they can all join together in the same room when the need arises and start mixing it up again.
I like that image, thanks! At house parties, do people feel excluded from those conversations?
> Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name. And they're always glad you came. ...
>
> That's what I think of when I think of the 2000 board. Is that where you are going with your vision of smaller boards?
>
> jujubeThat's the idea, but I'm having trouble getting there...
--
> Message received Dr. Bob
> And not unexpected.
>
> DinahI get the feeling I've disappointed you?
--
> I guess this is not so much creating new boards for specific people as it is making board space available for a small group of people to congregate for a brief time. I also think the topics discussed on the small board by a smaller group shouldn't radically change while they're there.
>
> MairSo it would be better if the small groups were very small, approved by me, given a brief time, and limited to specific topics? In other words, if *they* were the ones who were restricted? :-)
--
> A hefty bag would do nicely.
>
> AuntieMel:-)
--
> I think you like the idea of the small town boards simply because it gives you a new environment in which to study the posters.
It would be a new environment, that's true. I do like to try new things...
> I'm not saying you are going to publish anything (are you?), but at least would say that you want to study what will happen here if the small groups were instituted?
>
> emmy the cynic1. Of course I want to see what would happen!
2. There might be research later, but in that case, it would be up to you whether to be involved or not.
3. Wouldn't a publication be more interesting if it were about something that worked?
How did you get to be a cynic, may I ask?
--
> say YOU or *I* am put into a group of people in this small town we do not LIKE at all..no matter how much we want to like them.
>
> Fallen4MyTDid I propose doing that?
--
> This seems to be bringing up really strong feelings / memories of being excluded / rejected and so forth.
>
> alexandra_kI think so, too. Maybe also envy?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:20:35
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
I think mainly disgust, Dr. Bob.
Nice cozy rooms don't have bars on the doors. Nice cozy rooms in private clubs do. Private clubs don't open their doors for others to see but not participate. It's rude, plain and simple.
And I think it's against the civility rules for nice cozy posters to tell others they don't want them to join in their conversations. Or if it's not, it should be.
Don't pretty it up, Dr. Bob. If you want to study restrictions and don't care about anything else, say so.
If you want cozy rooms, create cozy rooms. Drop the restrictions. The fact that restrictions are a necessary part of your vision, and all other suggestions are ignored lead me to believe your motives are less than what I would like to expect from you.
And it's quite uncivil of you to assume envy is at the root of distaste for the idea, when posters have been more than enormously clear what is at the root of distaste for the idea. And Dr. Bob, think about it. Do you honestly believe that I, or Gabbi, or Mel (just as examples) would possibly feel envious of the posters inside a restricted room? I assure you envy would not enter the picture one bit for me.
How about doing us the courtesy of believing what we say.
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:24:30
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
>
>
> > Message received Dr. Bob
> > And not unexpected.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> I get the feeling I've disappointed you?
Won't be the first or last time, Dr. Bob. And it's not the biggest disappointment from you this week even.
Posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
Save us the pain that comes from trying when we are in effect impotent.
Just tell us:
It's my board and I can do what I want. I don't have to explain my reasons. It doesn't matter what my proposed research is. "Cohesiveness and feelings of belonging within a gated community in a VLG." "Gated communities and divisiveness within a VLG. Is there any difference between this and real life?" or even "How many insults to their integrity does it take to drive some of these internet junkie mealworms away?" It's my board and if you don't like it you can go to Psychcentral.
Wouldn't that be more honest and cause us less pain in the long run, Dr. Bob?
Hope hurts sometimes you know. Just rip it away. Tell us how powerless we are. It would be a kindness in the long run.
Posted by saw on January 28, 2005, at 8:01:23
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 8:04:36
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms - No, gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:20:35
> If you want cozy rooms, create cozy rooms. Drop the restrictions.
But would they stay cozy without restrictions?
> The fact that restrictions are a necessary part of your vision, and all other suggestions are ignored lead me to believe your motives are less than what I would like to expect from you.
Sorry, what suggestions have I ignored? I did propose a couple other potential approaches myself:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050116/msgs/447236.html
> And it's quite uncivil of you to assume envy is at the root of distaste for the idea
I'm sorry if I implied that I assumed it was at the root of anyone's distaste.
Bob
Posted by mair on January 28, 2005, at 13:00:43
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
Check your email
Posted by AuntieMel on January 28, 2005, at 13:32:31
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
Posted by jujube on January 28, 2005, at 14:27:20
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
> I like that image, thanks! At house parties, do people feel excluded from those conversations?
-- They shouldn't because in that type of situation, the conversations would be inclusive rather than exclusive. If you were already attending the party, you wouldn't need to be invited to participate in group conversations and social interaction taking place in the various rooms - you would just drop in and out of the various rooms and conversations at your leisure. The thinking behind a house party (at least the house parties I threw) is: the more the merrier; everybody is welcome; come in, make yourself at home, relax, and get to know each other or get caught up with one another.
> > Sometimes you want to go where everybody knows your name. And they're always glad you came. ...
> >
> > That's what I think of when I think of the 2000 board. Is that where you are going with your vision of smaller boards?
>
> That's the idea, but I'm having trouble getting there...
>
-- It don't know that it is possible to get there. The circumstances leading to the creation of the 2000 board were, as I understand it, unique. I don't know enough about the 2000 board, but I was under the impression that the members of that particular, restricted board had asked for such a forum to maintain group contact and be able to communicate with each other as a group. So, unless a particular group of posters is asking for such a forum, there would not seem to be a logical reason or a pressing need to create one.Well, that's it for me.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 15:01:56
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms - No, gated communities » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 6:20:35
GREAT post Dinah. I have 2 websites now that I own with a few of my friends and some are babblers so for me its not a case of ENVY...Dr Bob that was a PBC on it's own. I FEEL as Gabbix and Dinah feel..I email with some of the KEY Babble queens and kings in here..Its just not right but it IS your board so change it...make small rooms and label them whatever you want...most of us have another label for it
> I think mainly disgust, Dr. Bob.
>
> Nice cozy rooms don't have bars on the doors. Nice cozy rooms in private clubs do. Private clubs don't open their doors for others to see but not participate. It's rude, plain and simple.
>
> And I think it's against the civility rules for nice cozy posters to tell others they don't want them to join in their conversations. Or if it's not, it should be.
>
> Don't pretty it up, Dr. Bob. If you want to study restrictions and don't care about anything else, say so.
>
> If you want cozy rooms, create cozy rooms. Drop the restrictions. The fact that restrictions are a necessary part of your vision, and all other suggestions are ignored lead me to believe your motives are less than what I would like to expect from you.
>
> And it's quite uncivil of you to assume envy is at the root of distaste for the idea, when posters have been more than enormously clear what is at the root of distaste for the idea. And Dr. Bob, think about it. Do you honestly believe that I, or Gabbi, or Mel (just as examples) would possibly feel envious of the posters inside a restricted room? I assure you envy would not enter the picture one bit for me.
>
> How about doing us the courtesy of believing what we say.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 15:03:54
In reply to Just do it » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on January 28, 2005, at 7:56:15
Way to go Dinah
> Save us the pain that comes from trying when we are in effect impotent.
>
> Just tell us:
>
> It's my board and I can do what I want. I don't have to explain my reasons. It doesn't matter what my proposed research is. "Cohesiveness and feelings of belonging within a gated community in a VLG." "Gated communities and divisiveness within a VLG. Is there any difference between this and real life?" or even "How many insults to their integrity does it take to drive some of these internet junkie mealworms away?" It's my board and if you don't like it you can go to Psychcentral.
>
> Wouldn't that be more honest and cause us less pain in the long run, Dr. Bob?
>
> Hope hurts sometimes you know. Just rip it away. Tell us how powerless we are. It would be a kindness in the long run.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 28, 2005, at 17:02:37
In reply to Re: Just do it » Dinah, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 15:03:54
Yes, Dinah, thanks. I'm depressed not stupid.
Posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 18:08:04
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms, posted by Dr. Bob on January 28, 2005, at 4:28:17
<<> say YOU or *I* am put into a group of people in this small town we do not LIKE at all..no matter how much we want to like them.
>
> Fallen4MyTDr. Bob repies....
Did I propose doing that?>>Did I say you did?? I do not think I did...but did you say that would never be the case? I didn't see that either....How would you know how anyone feels about anyone else on here? Again it's your site but I am lost as to why you just do not say what you are going to do no sales job is needed and do it. Most posters have said they do not want this so clearly it is your vision...go for it but why bother to ponder all the points as if they come into play on this
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 19:55:25
In reply to Re: nice, cozy rooms/ Dr Bob, posted by Fallen4MyT on January 28, 2005, at 18:08:04
Oh, (((((Dinah))))). I hate to see you hurting.
My understanding is that this issue has come up a number of times. That Dr Bob has been keen on the idea for a while now, but that when he has suggested it, it has been met with a strong negative response from some quarters. What has he done then? He has seemed to let it go for a while, and wait…
Why hasn’t he implemented the idea already? Do you really believe that people’s negative responses have been completely unrelated to his decision to hold off? He has been discussing the issue when he could have just set up a board ages ago and only let the first x number of people who posted to it continue posting there (with this info at the top). He has provided a number of reasons to us, and while we might not be convinced by them they are reasons that he has attempted to provide for us so that we can try to understand where he is coming from. I personally take all this as evidence that he has shown reluctance to implement something that some people feel this strongly about. That shows me that he is reluctant to hurt people over this. Maybe he was hoping that people would come around in time… Maybe he is still hoping this…
But as he has also said fairly recently ‘I don't think it would work to base individual administrative decisions on how the person feels’. That may seem harsh. It is something that I had to think about a great deal to get my head around. That is something that I have been thinking about in relation to this issue. He has to base administration decisions like this by weighing up the potential benefits as well as the potential costs to the community. He has been doing that by providing reasons for the idea while other posters here have been providing reasons against. How can anybody really know what will benefit the present and future posters here the most unless we are willing to try out a few different things on occasion? We all have opinions, yes, but none of us really know how it will go. Over time will it seem more like a barred room, or a picnic at the park, or a room in a house party? The use of such analogies are a strategy used to attempt to evoke certain emotional responses in the reader. The trouble with such analogies is that they never are exact (two situations are never the same in all respects or they would not consitiute two different situations). Another trouble with analogies is that they do not provide reasons.Some people seem to see research fairly categorically as a bad thing. Dehumanising in that it treats people as objects and then we manipulate them to see what they will do. But that is a feature of experimentation which is only one kind of research. Dr Bob does not do experiments on us. We are not ‘lab rats’ or anything like that. He has told us that he runs the boards for support and education. If I had to guess the sort of thing he would do it would be something along the lines of asking us to write on our perspectives as to how VSM compare to VLG on those dimensions (those of support and education).
I have to say that in my opinion it makes a big difference what the proposed research is. If he starts this community with the intention of writing on ‘Gated communities and divisiveness within a VLG’ then I would not approve as he would be forseeing divisiveness but proceeding nevertheless. That would not be done with a supportive intention. If he intends to write something on ‘Cohesiveness and feelings of belonging within a gated community in a VLG’, on the other hand, then wouldn’t we say that he was well intentioned with this idea, even if it does turn to mush? Based on past research, however, I would think that it may be neither of those. It may well be something more along the lines of ‘inviting members to post their own perspectives’.
I did a little reading around on stuff about the internet. Lots of people still think that you can’t make friends off the internet. You can’t really get attached to or emotionally involved with people off the internet. We know that is bollocks. It is this forum that has showed me that it is bollocks. There are plenty of examples off these boards that would show other people that that is bollocks too if only some of the things that go on here were brought to their attention. There is a theraputic potential in the internet. It has been theraputic for me. I don’t think it is too much of a generalisation or assumption to say that it is theraputic for most of us or we wouldn’t be here. My understanding of his research is that that is something that Dr Bob is trying to show people. But we also know that that power to heal is also a power to hurt. Because we do get attached and emotionally involved with people and issues here. There are pros and cons…
I don’t feel particularly emotionally invested in this issue. My preference has changed a couple of times over the course of this discussion. Based on the reasons provided I have to say I am curious… But as I said before this really does seem to be bringing up strong emotional reactions for people. Based on the reasons I really don’t see how this can be so. Maybe the trouble comes from the use of analogy. Seeing VSG ‘as’ various things that have strong emotional responses attached to them. In the case of the various things that VSG remind us of our emotional responses are probably justified. In the case of VSG none of us know how that is going to go. But it won’t be exactly the same as whatever the other situation was. Because they are two different situations. There will be similarities (everything is similar to everything else) but it might not be as bad as it seems. It might turn out to be a good thing. And if it all does turn to custard then everyone who didn’t like the idea gets to say ‘silly silly Dr Bob – we told you so’.
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 21:02:44
In reply to Disclaimer: my 2 cents..., posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 19:55:25
ok so this is a bit different from the last post.
this is most probably going to be the last I'll say on this (sigh of relief no doubt :-) )Say small boards get set up.
Say it is done the way I mentioned above.
Say that whenever the group is considered 'full' (at x ammount of posters) another board is started. That way everybody gets to be a member of a small board if they desire. There can be as many small boards as people willing to participate in them. Everybody has the opportunity to participate in a VSG community. We don't pick which community it is true, but we all can be part of one if we so desire. If after x amount of time we haven't posted then we lose our slot on that board and there is another space available for whoever wants to sign up. When we come back from our break we can join up to another VSG. We may even get to join up to the same one.Hate to use an analogy... but suppose you have a house party to which 'everyone is welcome'. Say you get lots and lots of people. Thousands of people (how many registered babblers are there?) Not everyone can fit into the same room at one time. Even if you rented a hall for that purpose the 'sound' (or in this case look) of everyone talking is too much it is too hard to hear / look at it is boggling. Especially if you don't know anybody when you arrive.
So to prevent that overwhelming atmosphere you have the party somewhere smaller. There are only so many chairs that fit in those rooms.
I have faith that lots of people would prefer the VLG atmosphere. But Babble continues to grow. Look at how often the boards archive to get some indication of just how fast it grows and at how growth speeds up over time. What if we envisage the boards with twice as many regular posters as there are now? This won't take long if growth continues like it has. It is ok for the people who are already here, we just see people added to the people we already know - but how many newbies would be likely to stick around then? How hard would it be for them to 'get to know' particular posters? Jeepers. It took me about 6 or 7 or 8 months before I could get my head around more than 3 or 4 'personalities'. But the 'personalities' are what makes Babble most theraputic for me. Sure I can go over to PsychCentral and start posting over there, but it is different responding to posts as it it to respond to personalitites. The danger is that as the VLG keeps increasing in size the majority of newbies may not be able to get their heads around it.
I have lots of posters here who I feel I have got to know quite well and I consider them my friends. We would't all end up in the same VSG. I would continue to post to the VLG to retain those ties - and to meet new people! Once people have gotten to know the people in the VSG they may have the background support they got from the VSG and it might be that that gives them the strength to venture out to the VLG.
Babble is changing. Whether we like it or not. It is getting bigger. Are we losing something as it grows as well as gaining something? Perhaps a move like that can help us gain the best of both worlds.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 28, 2005, at 21:04:43
In reply to Disclaimer: my 2 cents..., posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 19:55:25
Hmmm, well we have different feelings about trying this out, but I truly admire how you look at all the angles. Not that it's surprising, that's how are are. I still had to say it though, it's something I find impressive.
Now stop it! : )
Posted by alexandra_k on January 28, 2005, at 21:20:04
In reply to Re: Disclaimer: my 2 cents... » alexandra_k, posted by Gabbix2 on January 28, 2005, at 21:04:43
> I truly admire how you look at all the angles.
Oh, I was just trying to read your mind Gabbix ;-)
> Now stop it! : )
Ok. I'll try!
:-)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 13:17:13
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dinah on January 25, 2005, at 6:39:43
> Just so you know, by my rough count, there are well fewer than 50 regular posters on every board except the meds board and probably on social. I'm sure the psyche board is used by more than 50 people, but recently, it's really only been used by 30-35 I think.
>
> MairJust curious, how would you define "regular" poster? I just did some PBP statistics...
--
> You can't go back, you know. You can't recreate something that is past within something that has moved on. Maybe this isn't what you wanted Babble to be, but it's what it is.
It is what it is, but can't history repeat itself?
> > What if 45 others wanted to join a conversation? Or a game?
> >
> Then it would be a right jolly game.You can add 45 players to a team, but the number that plays is usually fixed. And the new players might prefer to play on a new team than to sit on the bench...
> Better would be removing restrictions from the table. Better would be creating so many little esoteric boards that you could accomplish your objective (if your objective is size) without rudeness. Don't list them all on the main set of links. Have one link leading to a submenu for "small discussion groups" or something. Let the posters choose the topic, if you wish. Don't monitor them for civility guidelines, if you wish. A poster could suggest whatever small discussion group they wanted, for people who love dogs, or people who live in Montana. It could be an area that charges fees, or an area with separate registration, or whatever would suit your purpose - without being rude and without excluding people.
If there aren't any restrictions, growth is unrestricted. Having lots of boards doesn't mean some won't keep growing. As we've already seen.
Fees wouldn't be exclusionary? If they increased with the size of the board, they could keep them small...
> Babble is not a park. It's a group of people who gather together for a common purpose. It's a school, or a church, or if you wish a very large therapy group. Imagine a church allowing Sunday School classes having socials where people could watch the party but not enter. Or a school having clubs that weren't open to all based on nothing more than whimsy, but whose meetings were on school grounds during recess.
Some purposes are easier to achieve in smaller groups. Should all socials and club meetings be open to all members of the church or school?
Or is the issue being visible? It would be less rude to require a password even to read the boards?
> Don't break the community into gated areas. Don't divide the community.
The big city wouldn't be divided into gated areas; it would be expanded to include gated suburbs.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on January 30, 2005, at 16:53:01
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 13:17:13
As I said, Dr. Bob. Do as you will. You will anyway.
I can't really discuss this any further without violating the civility guidelines spectacularly.
Posted by Gabbix2 on January 30, 2005, at 17:12:17
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 13:17:13
> The big city wouldn't be divided into gated areas; it would be expanded to include gated suburbs.
>
> BobDr Bob that's just not true, it can't be expanded unless the cyber population of babble suddenly increased. As it is now, with only a very few of the "newbies" actually staying to join the babble population it is *not* expanding. You aren't buying land and adding gated communities, I don't believe that euphemistic analogy works, not that it would make gated communities more palatable to me if it did work. As it stands the big city *will* be divided into gated communities, and I find it insulting that you would say otherwise. But as Dinah said you will do what you will do, I wish though, that you wouldn't try to make it sound like it's anything other than a private club, somehow that makes it even harder to take.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 30, 2005, at 18:09:47
In reply to Re: gated communities, posted by Gabbix2 on January 30, 2005, at 17:12:17
> > The big city wouldn't be divided into gated areas; it would be expanded to include gated suburbs.
>
> Dr Bob that's just not true, it can't be expanded unless the cyber population of babble suddenly increased.
>
> You aren't buying land and adding gated communitiesHmm, maybe one difference is whether one thinks of the city as the place or the people...
I do in fact tend to think of adding boards as adding land. No posters are added, just boards. The current population uses them or doesn't.
More land might, however, facilitate an increase in population...
> As it is now, with only a very few of the "newbies" actually staying to join the babble population it is *not* expanding.
That's an interesting question, how many newbies stay. And whether that's changing. How would you define "stay"?
> you will do what you will do, I wish though, that you wouldn't try to make it sound like it's anything other than a private club, somehow that makes it even harder to take.
Sorry to keep beating this horse, I just wanted to address some specific points I hadn't before.
I'll do what I think makes sense, but I also want to explain my rationale and to ask for input. Since two heads are better than one. If we disagree, you might change my mind, and I might change yours, but not necessarily. We might still disagree.
Some people can see the glass as half-cozy, and others can see it as half-gated. The proof of the pudding is whether the poor horse drinks from it. :-)
Bob
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.