![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 30. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 12, 2005, at 18:46:15
What I'm commenting on was from a while back. I only happened upon it because the thread seemed interesting. I was rather disturbed that you left the admistrative role for a moment in your reply:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/psycho/20050117/msgs/443397.htmlI think you should have known better than to give your opinion or suggest anything indicative of your opinion (on non admistrative issues). This in my opinion is much cause for concern, since it has a small chance of leading to some sort of relationship with you...real or imagined.
Your liberal use of emoticons can also lead others to form a relationship with you in some way. If you are worried about seeming too harsh in your civility requests or are afraid of hurting people, perhaps this is not the job for you.
To make the administration role more administration and even less interactive, perhaps the role of moderator should be given to more than one person...who can then post using the name "Dr. Bob".
I read one post a little while back that suggested that you have interfered with suicide attempts before by contacting their ISP. I think that is a VERY BIG MISTAKE. Again, if you are unwilling to witness or have someone on the boards "commit" suicide...then I think you are not fit to be a true moderator. I appologize for being harsh. This is not personal.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 12, 2005, at 19:02:53
In reply to Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 12, 2005, at 18:46:15
> What I'm commenting on was from a while back. I only happened upon it because the thread seemed interesting. I was rather disturbed that you left the admistrative role for a moment in your reply:
>Why do you feel so strongly about what a moderators role should be ? There are other sites with moderators far more involved with the posters than Dr. Bob. I disagree with you completely.
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 0:07:37
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Shy_Girl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 12, 2005, at 19:02:53
> Why do you feel so strongly about what a moderators role should be ? There are other sites with moderators far more involved with the posters than Dr. Bob. I disagree with you completely.
By showing any hint of his personal opinion and feelings, especially via emoticons, he could lead some people to believe that he cares. This can in theory lead some to believe that he will intervene in crises, which he should never have to, because that is NOT his role as a moderator. By intervening once (not sure of his history in this regard), he sets up an unhealthy precedent of intervention.
To a lesser degree, his intervention by offering the possiblity of body dysmorphic disorder in the thread I referred to, also steps way beyond what a moderator should do. He was stepping in as a clinician at that point, and that is clearly not his role here.
Thanks for reading
Shy_Girl
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 13, 2005, at 3:56:30
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 0:07:37
> By showing any hint of his personal opinion and feelings, especially via emoticons, he could lead some people to believe that he cares. This can in theory lead some to believe that he will intervene in crises, which he should never have to, because that is NOT his role as a moderator.
Oh my, I'd better be careful when *I* use emoticons.
To a lesser degree, his intervention by offering the possiblity of body dysmorphic disorder in the thread I referred to, also steps way beyond what a moderator should do. He was stepping in as a clinician at that point, and that is clearly not his role here.
According to you I suppose, but though you state it definitively it's not based on anything other than your opinon, and no more valid than someone with an opposing one.
Posted by 10derHeart on April 13, 2005, at 9:19:02
In reply to Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 12, 2005, at 18:46:15
Hi Shy Girl,
I'm glad you posted this. It makes for an good discussion.
> I think you should have known better than to give your opinion or suggest anything indicative of your opinion (on non admistrative issues). This in my opinion is much cause for concern, since it has a small chance of leading to some sort of relationship with you...real or imagined. Your liberal use of emoticons can also lead others to form a relationship with you in some way.<
I, too, was surprised Dr. B posted that, as it is a little bit beyond what he usually does. But, I disagree with you that it's a problem. I gave it some thought, and I figured maybe he was just "pushing" the process along a little. What I mean is, with the depth and variety of knowledge of the posters here, BDD surely would have been brought up sooner or later, by someone. I even thought of it, having read of it, but didn't post the person in question, for reasons I don't recall now. Not sure why that time he did that, only Dr. Bob could say, but he is a human being, prone to impulse from time to time, like all of us. Seems like it was a passing on of information, not the offering of a clinical opinion at all, to me.
I get the basis of your concern, but I think maybe it's an unreasonable standard to apply. If he must guard against both real AND imagined relationships...well, how could he, really? Real is one thing, and I think he's scrupulously careful, 99% of the time, not to interact in any ways that could lead to that. But imagined is a bit different. For example, he's posted "thanks" to me, once, I think, and another time, maybe something like, "good point." From those, I suppose I could start to think I had a relationship with him. But it wouldn't be real at all, by anyone's way of measuring, and would be something I'd have to deal with and learn from, here and IRL if it spilled over there. Anyone can build up a relationship in their mind, perhaps one they'd like to have, or haven't had, from the tiniest things. (I know, I've done it) But I don't think the answer is for others to severly restrict their behavior out of fear that might happen. Maybe especially on a mental health forum, I think the bits of common ground, i.e., humanity, humor, using emoticons etc., Dr. B allows himself, makes for smoother interactions. Maybe helps people from feeling so much like, "gee, is this guy for real...or just a machine/robot?"
> To make the administration role more administration and even less interactive, perhaps the role of moderator should be given to more than one person...who can then post using the name "Dr. Bob".
I think he has already decided not to do this. It's specifically mentioned in the FAQs where it talks about deputies. I'm glad. To me, that would be strange and disingenuous. I would really hate not knowing *who* was really speaking. But you should feel free to try to change his mind on that by posting about it - just as you are!
> I read one post a little while back that suggested that you have interfered with suicide attempts before by contacting their ISP. I think that is a VERY BIG MISTAKE. Again, if you are unwilling to witness or have someone on the boards "commit" suicide...then I think you are not fit to be a true moderator. I appologize for being harsh. This is not personal.
Are you saying part of Dr. Bob's role must be, in your opinion, to be willing to "witness" someone commit suicide? I don't understand that. Can you explain your reasoning any more? There's been a huge discussion on how this should/could be handled (better), back in March (the thread you read, probably), and I think it was thoughtful and open about how difficult an area this is. But I'm not sure there was much disagreement that if someone's statements, in Dr. Bob's opinion, are beyond ideation, he may decide to use his info on their ISP to try to get IRL help to them. Why do you object to this, I'm wondering? I'm not sure how he would deal with suicidal posters - ethically, morally, humanly - without having some policy that aimed to TRY to get them IRL help in the most extreme cases. It's a fine line, and something most pdocs have to find a way to walk anyway.
Could you say what you think an alternative policy for this site on suicidal posters would look like? That would help me understand better.
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 11:46:58
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Shy_Girl, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 13, 2005, at 3:56:30
> Oh my, I'd better be careful when *I* use emoticons.
Please don't be sarcastic. Thank-you.
Shy_Girl
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 12:17:21
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Shy_Girl, posted by 10derHeart on April 13, 2005, at 9:19:02
> I, too, was surprised Dr. B posted that, as it is a little bit beyond what he usually does. But, I disagree with you that it's a problem. I gave it some thought, and I figured maybe he was just "pushing" the process along a little.
>... Not sure why that time he did that, only Dr. Bob could say, but he is a human being, prone to impulse from time to time, like all of us. Seems like it was a passing on of information, not the offering of a clinical opinion at all, to me.
I still don't think it was wise of him to provide ideas for discussion...it can give that particular idea more weight than others, because of his background.
>
> I get the basis of your concern, but I think maybe it's an unreasonable standard to apply. If he must guard against both real AND imagined relationships...well, how could he, really? Real is one thing, and I think he's scrupulously careful, 99% of the time, not to interact in any ways that could lead to that.
... Maybe especially on a mental health forum, I think the bits of common ground, i.e., humanity, humor, using emoticons etc., Dr. B allows himself, makes for smoother interactions. Maybe helps people from feeling so much like, "gee, is this guy for real...or just a machine/robot?"
>I think it would be better if he were just a robot. Then he won't have any feelings. I'm sorry, I'm not sure what to think anymore. I think I'm still a little messed up from overdosing on cough syrup. (I had some cool closed eye hallucinations in bed though!...or was it just lucid dreaming?) I just hate that he's a real person. Just seeing his picture angers me. I hate thinking that he thinks and feels. He needs to be more like a robot.
> > To make the administration role more administration and even less interactive, perhaps the role of moderator should be given to more than one person...who can then post using the name "Dr. Bob".
>
> I think he has already decided not to do this. It's specifically mentioned in the FAQs where it talks about deputies. I'm glad. To me, that would be strange and disingenuous. I would really hate not knowing *who* was really speaking. But you should feel free to try to change his mind on that by posting about it - just as you are!I suppose people can take a vote on that issue. For me, at his time at least, I'll be more comfortable knowing that Dr. Bob is not a real person. If his role is truly solely administration, I don't think it matters who posts as a moderator. The posts would be the same no matter which moderator posted.
> Are you saying part of Dr. Bob's role must be, in your opinion, to be willing to "witness" someone commit suicide? I don't understand that. Can you explain your reasoning any more?Yes, I think Dr. Bob should be totally without feeling and be ready to witness suicide. He shouldn't get involved because we are not his patients. (Even if we were I don't think he should because suicide is a personal choice). That is just my opinion though. Dr. Bob shouldn't have to worry about us in his real life, at all. Since he IS human, it must be hard to totally not think about us when he is not working as moderator. He needs to learn to be like a robot.
>But I'm not sure there was much disagreement that if someone's statements, in Dr. Bob's opinion, are beyond ideation, he may decide to use his info on their ISP to try to get IRL help to them. Why do you object to this, I'm wondering? I'm not sure how he would deal with suicidal posters - ethically, morally, humanly - without having some policy that aimed to TRY to get them IRL help in the most extreme cases. It's a fine line, and something most pdocs have to find a way to walk anyway.
Again, Dr. Bob shouldn't have to deal with this, it is not his job. He shouldn't have to worry about this. People have a right to kill themselves and shouldn't have people interfere. I don't think he should provide any help whatsoever...people die, that is life. (By the way, I'm NOT suicidal, but if I become suicidal...DO NOT INTERFERE!)
>
> Could you say what you think an alternative policy for this site on suicidal posters would look like? That would help me understand better.
>Again, just let people die. Don't get involved, one will only get hurt.
Shy_Girl
Posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 12:50:11
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » 10derHeart, posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 12:17:21
"Yes, I think Dr. Bob should be totally without feeling and be ready to witness suicide. He shouldn't get involved because we are not his patients."
My personal opinion is if there is someone about to do harm to himself it and if I could do something to stop it then it would be completely imoral on my part to not interfere.
There may also be some legal issues, as in by not helping are you assisting? And it could result in lawsuits from surviving family members.
As far as I know it has only happened with one poster - and she later thanked him for it.
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 13:11:21
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Shy_Girl, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 12:50:11
> My personal opinion is if there is someone about to do harm to himself it and if I could do something to stop it then it would be completely imoral on my part to not interfere.
Immoral, maybe...but definately not unethical. Dr. Bob has absolutely no ethical oligations with respect to interventions of suicide attempts.
> There may also be some legal issues, as in by not helping are you assisting? And it could result in lawsuits from surviving family members.
One can be careful to not assist and still not interfere. It is not against the law to not interfere.
> As far as I know it has only happened with one poster - and she later thanked him for it.
That's fine then. Dr. Bob, if you feel like you must interfere, do so, but not with me. Even though I'm happy at times now, I wouldn't mind if I had killed myself in the past. What does it matter anyways, I will simply disappear. People can believe whatever they want to, no one will know if I killed myself. No one really needs to care. I am NOT suicidal. If I become suicidal...DO NOT INTERFERE!
Thanks for reading
Shy_Girl
Posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 13:18:17
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » AuntieMel, posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 13:11:21
If you decide to 'just disappear' that is your decision.
But wouldn't you think that if someone announces it on the 'net then it is more a cry for help than an actual wish?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 13, 2005, at 14:21:46
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Gabbi-x-2, posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 11:46:58
> > Oh my, I'd better be careful when *I* use emoticons.
>
> Please don't be sarcastic. Thank-you.
>
> Shy_Girl
>
>
Yes, that was unnecessary.
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 14:47:34
In reply to Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 12, 2005, at 18:46:15
I'm sorry people. No one agrees with me. I don't belong anywhere. I know when I'm not needed.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 13, 2005, at 15:17:52
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 14:47:34
> I'm sorry people. No one agrees with me. I don't belong anywhere. I know when I'm not needed.
Well realistically what were the chances? If we felt that strongly that that's what a moderator should be like we'd probably be posting where the moderator was like that.
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on April 13, 2005, at 15:37:13
In reply to Re: maybe that's the point » Shy_Girl, posted by AuntieMel on April 13, 2005, at 13:18:17
Posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 15:48:56
In reply to Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 12, 2005, at 18:46:15
Please stop attacking me. You are making me very upset. I said I was sorry, what more do you want?
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:03:37
In reply to Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 12, 2005, at 18:46:15
I'm right with you on this, Shy. Only reason I haven't been over here backing you up is I've had my hands full confronting other problems at this same site.
I'm with you on crosstalk from the doc. Oddly, it's not just him now. His guest expert on the illegal pharmceuticals board wrote:
"You might want to examine where that message comes from (and I doubt that it comes from "society"); you might discover some addiction in your family that you have been responding to in a manner that you have not been aware of."And this expert is well versed in the difference in psychotherapy and group support i.e. therapy = crosstalk, support = no crosstalk.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20050323/msgs/483556.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/subs/20050323/msgs/483559.html
This board is not unlike the unsinkable Titanic, steaming full-speed ahead into a well-known danger area. Most boards have avoided these problems by excluding talk of suicide. Other issues, cross-talk, admin duties, well... you have better eye on that than I do at this point, I've been trying to sort out ambiguity in the "be civil" admonishment.
And then in this thread, I read:
>"If he must guard against both real AND imagined relationships...well, how could he, really? Real is one thing, and I think he's scrupulously careful, 99% of the time, not to interact in any ways that could lead to that."
By the way, when and where is the get together in Chicago? I might call the Tribune in case they want to send a photographer. I understand it is going to be in a public place, and this is a public forum, so it would seem to be newsworthy.
I don't want to go too far into the ethics on the suicide issue, but if he were to send somebody to my door, in a couple years, I might own his house. And if I intended to check out and was somehow instigated to use this forum to explain why, there is little chance he could do anything to stop it. I'm speaking strictly hypothetically, in my case, but not all death messages are cries for help. There are cries for help and there are strong statements set for post-mortem delivery. Most unfortunately, sometimes people involve other lives in their fatal messages.
I'm saying that not because I am inclined to do that, though I do hold a different view than most practitioners on the propriety of contemplating death. But in internet forums, it's another issue. There's the thing about harming "one's self or OTHERS". Now if it's others who might be harmed, there is nothing the admin could do. Homeland Security or any domestic law enforcement agency can get a warrant and everyone here could potentially be exposed if data gathered by the warrant became part of a court record. Should that happen to me, that my identity became exposed because of his management of the site, I would definately pursue a HIPAA complaint.
And Internet forums have been involved in suicide/homicide events. Recently.
Unfortunately, this project is a faith-based initiative and not one based on empirical evidence that it does more good than harm. A medical practitioner is establishing a precedent of practitioners pretending to be something other than doctors. Imagine if you were on an airplane, somebody had a heart attack and the only doctor on board made it his role to organize discussion to support the dying victim.
And if the administrative duties here don't require a doctor, why can't somebody else do them? That would certainly eliminate any possible inference that this guy they are going to visit face to face in Chicago is acting as a therapist and not as an administrator. And were admin duties performed by lay people, necessity would require that they codify protocols that go quite further than "I don't know it until I see it" in reference to what people can or cannot do. He can as well use his medical expertise to help qualified adminstrators, volunteer or otherwise, develop safe, reliable and consistent protocols for administering a site without implying the site is some sort of therapy group under a doctor's care.
To the rest of you, enjoy your days with your dear friend Robert Hsiung. There are more than one of us who hope some better arrangement will soon dawn, and specifically in reference to this board and his role.
If you don't get around to responding to this, you've done more than enough already, Shy. You'll be doing me a favor to let it go so I can conclude my business and get on with something that pays.
THE END.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 0:21:33
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries » Shy_Girl, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:03:37
used2be wrote, speaking hypothetically of course:
[Homeland Security or any domestic law enforcement agency can get a warrant and everyone here could potentially be exposed if data gathered by the warrant became part of a court record. Should that happen to me, that my identity became exposed because of his management of the site, I would definately pursue a HIPAA complaint.]
HIPAA is about protected HEALTH information. As a public internet forum, HIPAA rules do NOT apply to posts on Babble in any way shape or form. There is no personal protected health information on this forum.
Just to clarify.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:51:18
In reply to HIPAA does not apply to this forum, posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 0:21:33
> used2be wrote, speaking hypothetically of course:
>
> [Homeland Security or any domestic law enforcement agency can get a warrant and everyone here could potentially be exposed if data gathered by the warrant became part of a court record. Should that happen to me, that my identity became exposed because of his management of the site, I would definately pursue a HIPAA complaint.]
>
> HIPAA is about protected HEALTH information. As a public internet forum, HIPAA rules do NOT apply to posts on Babble in any way shape or form. There is no personal protected health information on this forum.
>
> Just to clarify.
>
>
> gg
You stated above that you are not an aribiter of civility in the context of this forum, so I am certain you undertand you are not an adjudicator of matters of law, nor to my knowledge, a practicing counselor of law.Since the list of covered entitities begins with the word "including" could you, acting only as a layperson, cite the case precedents you have reviewed which inform your opinion that this forum is neither among the listed entities nor among those not listed but suggested as beyond the term "including"?
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 2:46:02
In reply to Re: HIPAA does not apply to this forum » gardenergirl, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:51:18
Okay this one has got to be 'splained. It's too important to just sum up.
From the link you provided, protected health information (PHI) is defined as:
[Protected Health Information. The Privacy Rule protects all "individually
identifiable health information" held or transmitted by a covered entity or its business
associate, in any form or media, whether electronic, paper, or oral. The Privacy Rule
calls this information "protected health information (PHI)."12
“Individually identifiable health information” is information, including demographic
data, that relates to:
• the individual’s past, present or future physical or mental health or
condition,
• the provision of health care to the individual, or
• the past, present, or future payment for the provision of health care to the
individual,
and that identifies the individual or for which there is a reasonable basis to believe
can be used to identify the individual.13 Individually identifiable health information
includes many common identifiers (e.g., name, address, birth date, Social Security
Number).
The Privacy Rule excludes from protected health information employment records
that a covered entity maintains in its capacity as an employer and education and
certain other records subject to, or defined in, the Family Educational Rights and
Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. §1232g.]In addition, from the same link is a statement about an individuals opportunity to agree or object to disclosure of PHI:
[Uses and Disclosures with Opportunity to Agree or Object. Informal permission may be obtained by asking the individual outright, or by circumstances that clearly give the individual the opportunity to agree, acquiesce, or object. Where the individual is incapacitated, in an emergency situation, or not available, covered
entities generally may make such uses and disclosures, if in the exercise of their
professional judgment, the use or disclosure is determined to be in the best interests
of the individual.]Now let's apply this definition to Babble.
1) Poster's are not individually identifiable. We use screen names. We can opt out of providing any demographic information that might relate to our present, past, or future health conditions.
2) Even if this a health care provider relationship could be construed between Dr. Bob and the posters on the board, we have the opportunity to object to the disclosure of information upon registration, by choosing not to participate in Babble. Dr. Bob is quite specific on the ownership of what is posted on his site. One may opt out by not registering.
3) Posts generated on this site are not treatment records. Many posts do contain information the poster has chosen to write about their physical or mental health. This does not make them PHI, or even health information under HIPAA standards, because it was not created as part of a provider/user interaction.In my informed opinion, nothing on this site could be construed as PHI.
On a side note, I do find your "donation" of time on this site to be curious. Such intensity. Oops, now I feel like I'm at work.
Regards.
gg
Posted by 10derHeart on April 14, 2005, at 13:21:57
In reply to Re: Dr. Bob, you overstepped the boundaries, posted by Shy_Girl on April 13, 2005, at 14:47:34
When one or two people, out of the hundreds who visit here, or even out of the much smaller number who post regularly, disagree with you does that really equal "no one" agreeing with you? Are you sure of that?
And as you can see, once a bit of time passed, used2b arrived to support you. Used2b is someone :-)
Do you think it's maybe jumping to a conclusion to think you don't belong anywhere and you're not needed because not all agree with your point of view on certain things? Seems like it to me. That's really unfortunate, and a loss to the Babble community.
There is room in this group for all sorts of people with all sorts of views (provided they're civil), IMO. How dull would it be if we all just were in constant, total agreement? I don't think I would learn much of anything.
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 15, 2005, at 0:06:24
In reply to Re: HIPAA does not apply to this forum » gardenergirl, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:51:18
Dr. Bob is not acting as a Dr. on this site, he's the site's moderator, that's it.
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 15, 2005, at 16:00:23
In reply to Re: HIPAA does not apply to this forum » used2b, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 15, 2005, at 0:06:24
no doctor would tollerate this title..
am I wrong?
he's really really cool
cool
kewl
cwool
quwell
K-00l
we like him in other words
Ja* the real doctor
talk to me about your diagnosis...
kidding.
lets keep this...
silly?
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 15, 2005, at 17:48:40
In reply to as a matter of fact he's our Bob-o-licious..:), posted by Jai Narayan on April 15, 2005, at 16:00:23
That's right, that's his official title.
I wonder if he has that on his desk. Probably not.
He's probably afraid the other Doctors will snicker.
Posted by Jai Narayan on April 16, 2005, at 5:42:19
In reply to Re: as a matter of fact he's our Bob-o-licious..:) » Jai Narayan, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 15, 2005, at 17:48:40
and as another "doctor" I am snickering...
unabashedly...
ha ha ha
I remember when my dad got some notice that he could now be called a Dr. he had so much fun with it. My Dr. daddy was a lawyer.
I want to grow up and be a Dr. of something..
Posted by gardenergirl on April 16, 2005, at 11:52:01
In reply to Re: as a matter of fact he's our Bob-o-licious..:), posted by Jai Narayan on April 16, 2005, at 5:42:19
Just had to try that out. ;)
gg
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.