![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 51. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
> I'm still waiting to hear back from them again, so I assume they're considering a discount...
Wrong! Well, I'll pay the toll (and not out of donations). Journals do need to make a living, too. Anyway, here it is:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
You'll let me know what you think?
Bob
Posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Well the article was pretty much as I expected. A bit dry & not a research topic at all. It is a reasonable evaluation of PB & how it has functioned.
I can see little wrong other than a couple of the chosen examples ( support for Li toxicity ) are not really indicative of the average but rather extensive.
I think the conclusions are valid. I also can not see anything to object too...
Thank You Dr Bob for PB.
Posted by Rzip on January 25, 2001, at 20:05:58
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
How extensive and to what degree are the research you are planning to post here?
- Rzip
Posted by Cam W. on January 25, 2001, at 21:23:44
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Thanks Dr.B. - The University didn't stock the journal or have it available online. I also forgot my copycard, so I had to carry a roll of dimes. I couldn't find any of the other articles I wanted either, so like "a kid in a candy store" I just browsed and printed articles that looked interesting.
Your article was very informative and brought back many memories (but jeez, did you have to mention me only in a "please be civil" context - man, those come back to haunt me). Also, only 17 "please be civils" and at least 3 are mine (that's embarassing).
Good article, and thanks for providing it for free. We were ready to take up a collection (no, really). Keep up the good work. I'll pass this article along to the psychiatrists who moderate our various conferences, if you don't mind. I think some of our pocs need someone to show them that there is some good stuff on the internet.
- Cam
Posted by name on January 26, 2001, at 1:35:56
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
While the article is primarily an administrator’s self-assessment and explanation of his on-line project, since the administrator intended to “publish the results of a project” the project would most likely be “always regarded as ‘research.’” Preparation of the article was research, which is “systematic investigation ... designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.” The author began the research when he intitiated a project for his own participatory observation, intending to use the results for publication. The article then, can be seen as a published research finding in support of a hypothesis.
(U of Chi. IRB Guidelines).The research method was “participant observation (in which) the researcher assumes a role in the setting or group being studied” (USDHHS Office of Human Protections IRB Guidebook.)
The topic of the research, a “hybrid type of group” in which a mental health professional serves as an administrator while participants offer mutual self-help, was “first discussed long before there was an Internet.” The hypothesis studied in the research is that the specific type of group administered by the author offers the best of self-help groups and of groups lead by a mental health professional. (Quotations denote content from Cyberpscyhology article)
While the group might offer benefits of both types of groups, there is no evidence offered to support a finding that the group offers the “best of both worlds” because neither “world” outside the author's project is thoroughly surveyed in search of its best qualities.
The research findings, in support of the conclusion that the site offers “the best of both worlds” include:
* that “usage statistics and the anecdotal evidence of the posts themselves support the effectiveness of the group,”
* that “the group is accessible and safe,”
* that while “on-line self-help groups also have the potential for destructive interactions” “mental health professionals … minimize … such disruptions”But negative findings are that:
* “to our (whose?) knowledge, no outcome study has been done. Systematic research on this site and others is, however, certainly needed.”The assessment of negative results does not include:
* consideration of the site administrator's role as a researcher,
* the lack of systematic oversight as is standard in research involving human subjects or
* the potential stigmatization of participants who are prompted by an experimental intimate environment to reveal personally identifiable details related to their psychological well-being or mental health.Some random observations about findings offered in the article include:
The administrative structure of the site suggests that only one mental health professional is involved, and that no peer review is conducted to refine procedures or to minimize harmful aspects of the site.
> "Contrary to early predictions that 'computers will remain on the fringe of patient education' the Psycho-Babble useage statistics, in fact, demonstrate their popularity."
The statistics do not, however, compare the popularity of the Psycho-Babble format with other educational methods, or with other computer-based educational methods.
> “Usage statistics … support the effectiveness of the group.”
Rates of usage and the technical difficulty cited are products of the open format. If usage statistics and anecdotal audience support were the only measures, The Jerry Springer Show could be represented as an effective group therapy setting. The author does acknowledge that 48 percent of posters posted only once, and suggests that the site might not have been helpful to them, yet the author does not seem to weigh the possibility evenly with anecdotal indicators of effectiveness, or assess anxiety that might have developed as a result of visiting for any of that 48 percent of one-time participants.
> “Drawbacks are the potential for multiple identities and the technical difficulty of preventing determined individuals from gaining entry into the group.”
Yet, the site author has since twice supported the use of multiple screen names (at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/312.html : and at http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20001124/msgs/134.html )
Other sites easily overcome the technical difficulty of excluding unwanted members, without embarrassment or stigmatization. Structurally, E-groups sites provide a flexible, combined message board/mailing list format that allows moderators to strictly control entry with a registration process somewhat similar but more selective than that of Psycho-Babble. While in the Cyberpsychology article, the author compares message boards with chat rooms and with mailing lists, administrative styles of other on-line mental-health self-help message boards are not comprehensively compared with that of Psycho-Babble.
As a limited comparison with other on-line self-help group administrative styles, in one instance the author writes: “When messages are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by e-mail and that would have the effect of being less embarrassing.”
The author proceeds to explain his opinion of the advantage of his method, but does not completely survey other methods. Other sites include lists of rules. While the author’s occasional postings “offer the advantage of clarifying the limits for others” he declines to succinctly define in the site limits not explained in the “one rule” which he acknowledges must be clarified for many who do not recognize the author’s definition of civility. In this manner, the site tends to reflect the author’s personal values. “Very important posters” who have followed hundreds of posts might be familiar with arbitrary and subjective limits. The group of VIPs then tends to reinforce the credibility of the author’s values, while outsiders who might be more familiar with limits of other on-line groups are sacrificed as examples of poor citizenship. By not offering readily available, concise explanations of site-specific limits to all who choose to visit the group, the administrator’s role becomes that of model citizen whose values are to be studied and emulated.
From a mental health professional, an assessment of incivility can easily be construed as a diagnosis of an anti-social personality, though none of the interviews or examinations required to reach such a diagnosis have been offered. Because the author serves not only administrative and therapeutic functions, but also functions in a research capacity, the insinuation of a diagnosis in the course of research activity might cause harm or stigmatization of the person so identified. Human subjects are ostensibly to be protected from such harm during research activities.
The author did not discuss a Psycho-Babble site dedicated specifically to pscyhological problems of children. Children enjoy special attention by USDHHS standards for oversite of human research.
> “The only cash expenditures to date have been $40 for the Fluid Dynamics Search Engine and $349 for a secure web server certificate.”
The only expenditures listed are those of the administrator. Someone must be paying for the Internet access and for the server equipment. The value of those services likely far exceeds the listed expenditures.
> “The site is not advertised.”
Though it is promoted now in at least two on-line journals.
> “Sustaining others is in any case a worthwhile enterprise.”
While sustaining others is worthwhile, sustaining perceptions is not always worthwhile. Unlike interaction that sustains people contemplating suicide, interaction at Psycho-Babble can sustain specific perceptions, some of which might interfere with transformative realizations.
The author acknowledged discussion elsewhere of Virtual Munchausen Syndrome, but overlooked other related syndromes that could relate to the site, such as Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy, and Virtual Hyperchondria, (dubbed Cyberchondria in a recent popular press item on MSN). As a result of increasingly available information about diagnoses, Internet users learn symptoms of diseases that they may then perceive in themselves. Coupled with television and print advertising by psychopharmaceutical manufacturers, the public is better equipped than ever to report to physicians the symptoms likely to result in prescriptions of commonly abused drugs.
One group member whose postings were used in the article as an example of help-rejecting had requested that those at the site, “Please stop talking about me.”
A group member’s screen name was included in the article by way of a screen shot.
Comments:
The theme of these remarks is that the site could provide a more supportive and educational environment if other sites were reviewed and the benefits of their administrative styles incorporated.
These remarks also suggest that promotion of advantages of the site, absent a wider comparison with other options, expand the opportunity for potentially harmful results of research on human subjects. To conduct a novel project, and to publish statements about the effectiveness of the project is clearly a form of research. While the author’s intentions might be the best, the research has not undergone the systematic review that offers the best protection expected by human research subjects, as suggested by the U.S. Dept of Health and Human Services. Harmful results include the possibility that people are encouraged to participate in a new and intimate environment, and to disclose potentially damaging personal details, with insufficient advice about the ramifications of releasing details that can lead to job loss, stigmatization or criminal prosecution.
Of course, under the leadership of Tommy Thompson, the U.S. Dept. of Health and Human Services might redifine what is politically correct for reasearch projects that study human behavior.
To offer critical responses to a journal article is not to suggest that Dr. Hsuing is a bad person or that the site is not in some way effective in its stated purposes of support and education. That a person offers such criticism here is not evidence that the person feels himself or herself a messiah or is being antagonistic to see whose buttons they can push (as suggeted elsewhere on this site). A person might reply because the author of an article asked, “You'll let me know what you think?”
These insights are offered here as much for the general readership of the site as for the few designated as "very important posters." A person might reply to this discussion on this board because it is a topic of general concern, and because the person is somewhat able to endure withering criticism by a few that might prevent others from discussing those concerns. Some might recognize such an effort as selfless service. On the other hand, maybe it is just a more productive and interesting way to spend time than watching television.
Posted by danf on January 26, 2001, at 4:35:19
In reply to Re: The article, posted by name on January 26, 2001, at 1:35:56
Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 26, 2001, at 8:31:42
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Not a single post from me was mentioned!! ;o) Only kidding Dr bob!!!
I actually found that alot more intresting than I thought it would be. I presumed it would just going to go way over my head, but I enjoyed reading it!!!
Keep up the good work Dr Bob!!
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 26, 2001, at 8:34:49
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
I get this overwhelming feeling that you just want to "blind us" with your obvious (?) intelligence.
I thought it was a good article, and never claimed to be anything that it wasn't. It just stated facts.
You seem almost obsessed with pulling Dr Bob apart, and critisizing everything to do with this article. Why?? Has Dr Bob hurt you in any serious way??No! I think not!
Posted by Cam W. on January 26, 2001, at 8:55:45
In reply to Re: The article, posted by name on January 26, 2001, at 1:35:56
name - I'm sorry. Do you have a mental health issue to discuss or are you just trying to impose your particular view of the world on us. Your posts do lack substance and, even though wordy, do not say anything. Rhetoric is easy. Kinda reminds me of the stoics. Please, if you don't want to watch what goes on here, turn off your computer.
As for evidence of harm by this site. Provide one solid piece of evidence that this has happened (aside from your hurt feelings). - Cam
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 9:38:15
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
ACK! When I click on "downloadable", the adobe acrobat window opens, but then the whole computer freezes up and nothing happens. I have to use the task manager to close it and free up the computer again.
Any ideas?
Posted by Greg on January 26, 2001, at 9:39:28
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Bob,
The article was pretty much what I was expecting. Good writing. Quite frankly, I think this discussion has blossomed a little out of control. I'm not trying to devalue anyone's opinion here, it just seems like much ado about nothing, IMHO of course.
I was surprised to see the reference to Haven though...do I owe you a finder's fee for any new members???
Have a great weekend,
Greg> > I'm still waiting to hear back from them again, so I assume they're considering a discount...
>
> Wrong! Well, I'll pay the toll (and not out of donations). Journals do need to make a living, too. Anyway, here it is:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/research.html
>
> You'll let me know what you think?
>
> Bob
Posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:17:12
In reply to Re: The article » name, posted by danf on January 26, 2001, at 4:35:19
> Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
James here.....
Or we could just ignore name.
james
Posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:32:52
In reply to The article, posted by Dr. Bob on January 25, 2001, at 18:45:22
Maybe in the future when more research is published some can hold off on the wild speculation that happened before we all got
to read it. Great article, no harm done, no names
reveiled.James
Posted by mars on January 26, 2001, at 11:44:55
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 9:38:15
Noa, right-click on the PDF link and choose "save target as", which will save the file directly to your hard drive. If that doesn't work you might need to remove and reinstall Acrobat Reader.
mary
> ACK! When I click on "downloadable", the adobe acrobat window opens, but then the whole computer freezes up and nothing happens. I have to use the task manager to close it and free up the computer again.
>
> Any ideas?
Posted by mars on January 26, 2001, at 11:51:06
In reply to Re: The article, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:32:52
I tried to say something like that on PSB, but don't know how many took a peek at the msg.
cheers,
mary
p.s. Vesper's screen name is still revealed in the screen shot. That seems like an oversight, since he's quoted elsewhere as w/o using his full pseudoname.
> Maybe in the future when more research is published some can hold off on the wild speculation that happened before we all got
> to read it. Great article, no harm done, no names
> reveiled.
>
> James
Posted by Rzip on January 26, 2001, at 12:31:31
In reply to Re: The article, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:32:52
> Maybe in the future when more research is published some can hold off on the wild speculation that happened before we all got
> to read it. Great article, no harm done, no names
> reveiled.
That is precisely what I was trying to tell you guys! Ahhhhhh!- Rzip
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 14:15:46
In reply to Re: The article » Noa, posted by mars on January 26, 2001, at 11:44:55
Just printed it out. Thanks for the tech consult, Mary.
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
In reply to Re: The article, posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
Just finished reading the article.
It seemed a good description of the board and some of the plusses and minuses of this format, kind of an overview of how it runs, some of the issues, etc. I think it will serve well as advice from an "old hand" to any "newbies" out there (Mental Health Professionals) who are thinking of starting some kind of online support group.
I think it is good to have this sort of descriptive, reflective paper--to reflect on the process, what has worked, what hasn't--as a way to step back and see how this medium is developing as a resource for mental health support.
Someone mentioned that it isn't exactly a research article. Even though it isn't an outcome study or controlled experiment, and even though it is rather an overview, I think it does contribute to the knowledge base because it steps back, describes the process, names phenomena that occur, reflects on the efficacy of problem solving, etc.
Dr. Bob, I don't know how much editing the journal did, but it seemed like there were a couple of passages where I would have wanted a bit more discussion: For example, on page 940, under "spectrum of posts", you seem to gloss over a primary focus of PB---med-related posts--- without describing or illustrating some "typical" patterns of information sharing and support. I think this is unfortunate because this is often (IMHO) the bulk of what happens here. I guess I would have liked to see an example ("typical") of some exchanges about medication and an example ("typical") of some exchanges of social support or information on non-med issues.
Another thing touched on briefly that I would have liked to see more discussion of is humor, both because it has been such an important part of the comeraderie, and because of the potential for misunderstandings, and because of how humor became a contended issue (although I can't remember if the big flare-up about humor happened after the time frame of the article).
Which brings me to another important topic that isn't covered: the issue of language--text communication--difficulty conveying nuances, attitude, humor, intention, etc. that have been discussed on the board many times, in addition to the ways that this format (board vs. chat, and text communication) may also facilitate growth, as was discussed when you posted the hypotheses a few months back.. I know this is a whole BIG topic in itself, but I would have liked to see it at least touched upon.
I guess I would also have to agree with whoever said, above, that a couple of the citations were long and perhaps not the best examples of "typical" exchanges.
Although you did use single letters to denote posters, the illustration of the frames format shows Vesper's screen name in full, and I am wondering if this was intentional or not.
Some of the things I mentioned here that I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of, would actually make great subjects to explore more in depth on their own.
Well, you asked, and I probably gave you more than you wanted to hear.
It was a good article.
Posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:07:29
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
PS--btw did I say 'thanks' for posting it so we could read it? Thanks.
Posted by Cam W. on January 26, 2001, at 16:29:59
In reply to Re: The article, posted by stjames on January 26, 2001, at 11:17:12
> > Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
>
> James here.....
>
> Or we could just ignore name.
>
> jamesJames - Thanks, I sometimes forget that I can do that. Sorry to all for my knee-jerk reactions. Hmm... maybe some sort of anger management course may be in order for me.
Keep me cool, dude - Cam
Posted by Greg on January 26, 2001, at 18:07:23
In reply to Re: The article » stjames, posted by Cam W. on January 26, 2001, at 16:29:59
> > > Given your bias & propensity for argument, I suggest you watch TV.
> >
> > James here.....
> >
> > Or we could just ignore name.
> >
> > james
>
> James - Thanks, I sometimes forget that I can do that. Sorry to all for my knee-jerk reactions. Hmm... maybe some sort of anger management course may be in order for me.
>
> Keep me cool, dude - CamCam,
Anger Management is a big thing in Cal, I'll check into some courses you can take while you're here. :)
Posted by Rach on January 27, 2001, at 0:08:35
In reply to Re: The article--it worked--thanks! » mars, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 14:15:46
> Just printed it out. Thanks for the tech consult, Mary.
I had exactly the same prob - and it also worked for me. Thank you too, Mary!
Posted by Rzip on January 27, 2001, at 0:15:35
In reply to Re: The article, posted by Noa on January 26, 2001, at 15:06:01
> Someone mentioned that it isn't exactly a research article. Even though it isn't an outcome study or controlled experiment, and even though it is rather an overview, I think it does contribute to the knowledge base because it steps back, describes the process, names phenomena that occur, reflects on the efficacy of problem solving, etc.This is an article and not a research paper because it violates the essence of the scientific method. See BMJ Volume 315 2 August 1997. I do not know what BMJ stands for, I just have the article, which is titled, "How to read a paper". I use it to help me think through the reading of research papers.
Dr. Bob's article sets the basis for future papers. It is a good reference article about the PB website. When he writes a real paper, all he has to do is reference it. That is if the PB background info. as we know it has circulated to a larger audience by the time he publishes these future research papers.
Why isn't this a research paper, you ask...
First, let me explain a little about the history of the problems with scientific psychiatry. Prior to WWII, people believed that each mental patient should be regarded as an individual (n=1). Since you can not run a study with only one test subject, the scientific method was not applied to psychiatry. After WWII, people began to realize that subjects could be grouped together, and thus null hypotheses could be applied to a certain theory concerning a certain disease. The scientific aspect of psychiatry (as opposed to the Freudian psychoanalysis theory). I am probably not making any sense. The bottom-line is that Dr. Bob's article did not follow Karl Popper's formulation of falsificationism. The falsificationism formulation by Karl Popper states that "A scientist should begin by making conjectures about how the world is and then seek to disprove them...If...a scientist tries diligently to disprove a hypothesis, and fails, the hypothesis gains in stature." (Can J Psychiatry, Vol 41, May 1996). It is from Pg. 227-8 of The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry.So, Dr. Bob's article is not a scientific article because the hypotheses if there is one, is very ambigiously phrased: "An online self-group hosted by a mental health professional...is hypothesized to combine the best of both worlds." Let us assume that there is a well-acknowledged reason to form this hypotheses in the cyberpsychology field, what Dr. Bob then fails to do is to go on and illustrate that this particular combo makes a significant difference in the Online mental health field. By the way, I did not understand the wording, "Best of Both Worlds". Ambigious! What worlds? Show me the specific stats that illustrate the benefits of inter-twining the Online Self-Help Group with the Online Mental Health Professional hosted group.
O.K. Here is the main problem. What intrinsic quality are you measuring, Dr. Bob? One variable at a time, remember. For instance, take the SUPPORT character. A research paper should first state the null hypotheses that Online Self-Help group vs. Online group hosted by a Mental Health Professional is equally as supportive as the combo. The paper should then go on to measure the support character within the group. If the Test of Support, let us call it ToS show that the ToS value in the Combo group is significantly higher than that of the Test group as well as the Control group (people who are not engaged in this form of Online communication). Then, the author can reject the null hypotheses and support Dr. Bob's alternative hypotheses that this is indeed the best of both worlds.
Am I making any sense? The bottom-line is that the article by Dr. Bob is a great description of how PB works, but I do not know if it contributes to the scientific library in the Cyberpsychology field.
There is just WAY too much variables in here for this article to even be considered as a research paper. I do not even know where to begin to think through this. So, I came to the conclusion that this is merely a primitive basis for future studies. Besides, it is kind of hard to conduct a research study when the author do not really know his subjects at all. Who knows whether the form of exchanges on PB is reliable or not.
In conclusion, Dr. Bob, who I love dearly wrote an unscientific article about a very complex medium for future therapeutic exchanges. I am sure he realizes this and is seeking for feedback. Beware of what you contribute though...he just might throw you into a future study or publication that he is currently stewing over. By continue to participate on this site, you guys are volunteering (informed or otherwise) to participate in Dr. Bob's research sampling or studies. A word of caution: Don't post another word if you are against the idea of being used. Dr. Bob can be pretty vicious when it comes to research opportunities and such. I mean at this junction, I really wish that he would take the time to be more upfront regarding his future research plans in terms of this site. Even if he does chose to reply, still read between the lines. Once a researcher, always a researcher :-)
- Rzip
Posted by Rach on January 27, 2001, at 0:19:18
In reply to Re: The article » Cam W., posted by Greg on January 26, 2001, at 18:07:23
Like Nikki, I must complain that I was not included!!! :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 27, 2001, at 2:17:09
In reply to Re: The article, posted by danf on January 25, 2001, at 19:50:21
> Well the article was pretty much as I expected. A bit dry...
You don't think they'll want to make it into a movie? :-)
> How extensive and to what degree are the research you are planning to post here?What I do, I'll post (if at all possible), but I don't have specific plans. However, I do think, and have mentioned before, that it would be interesting to try to collect some outcome data... And shar just suggested a comparison with other message boards...
> jeez, did you have to mention me only in a "please be civil" context*Please* don't jump to any conclusions based on the posts of yours that I chose or didn't choose. I was trying to convey an idea of what goes on here, not to present a balanced sample of the contributions of individual posters.
> While the group might offer benefits of both types of groups, there is no evidence offered to support a finding that the group offers the “best of both worlds” because neither “world” outside the author's project is thoroughly surveyed in search of its best qualities...Hey, how about a letter to the editor? :-)
> name - I'm sorry. Do you have a mental health issue to discuss or are you just trying to impose your particular view of the world on us. Your posts do lack substance and, even though wordy, do not say anything.Please, I know there's more to this than meets the eye, and I value your contributions, but if you're not able to be civil, I'm going to need to block you. At least for a while.
> I was surprised to see the reference to Haven though...do I owe you a finder's fee for any new members???Good idea, maybe 10% of your subscription fees? :-)
> It seemed a good description of the board and some of the plusses and minuses of this format, kind of an overview of how it runs, some of the issues, etc...How about another letter to the editor? :-)
One thing that's obvious, but which I think I may not have made explicit, but should have, is my bias...
> I guess I would also have to agree with whoever said, above, that a couple of the citations were long and perhaps not the best examples of "typical" exchanges.
Hmm, I guess I did say "typical", oops! They were actually intended as examples of how good posts *can* be. Bias in action, maybe?
> Although you did use single letters to denote posters, the illustration of the frames format shows Vesper's screen name in full, and I am wondering if this was intentional or not.
Here's the deal. I wanted to include a screen shot, a picture is worth a thousand words, etc. But a real screen shot has the name of the poster. If I edit the web page, it's no longer authentic.
The answer (or one answer, anyway) is to use the actual web page, but to black out in an obvious way the name of the poster. But I just didn't think of that then.
> Some of the things I mentioned here that I would have liked to see a bit more discussion of, would actually make great subjects to explore more in depth on their own.
Like in a book? :-)
> Well, you asked, and I probably gave you more than you wanted to hear.
>
> It was a good article.Thanks, and I do appreciate *all* the input. After all, I couldn't have done this without you. :-)
> This is an article and not a research paper because it violates the essence of the scientific method. See BMJ Volume 315 2 August 1997...A third letter to the editor! :-)
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.