![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 50 to 74 of 156. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 23, 2003, at 16:15:12
In reply to Lou's question to Dinah-2 » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:22:10
If you have ever been a moderator, or an owner, of a group of people in an internet message board, you would know it is hard work to keep a balance of good Vs bad. A board the size of this one, would, in my experience, cause ALOT of headaches. I don;t think Dr Bob has say that it is for us to be able to appreciate that it must do.
This is as clearly as I can state my feelings.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
In reply to Re: Lou's question to Dinah-2 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on March 23, 2003, at 16:15:12
NikkiT2,
You wrote,"I don;t think Dr Bob has say that it is for us to be able to appreciate that it must do."
Could you examine your statement above and see if there are any words that are either misspelled or have some other grammatical error? If you could, and you do find such, could you correct the words and grammer? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 18:31:06
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
ayuda,
You wrote,[...it is counter productive to the researcher when people use {name calling}.
The situation that caused a thread here was about that Dr. Bob [allowed, innitually] {name calling} in the form of anti-Semitic language being used. Posters were outraged that Dr. Bob allowed the {name calling}, such as [greedy jew], and Dr. Bob at first wrote that he would allow the [racist language] for spacific cause of his own. The posters were still outraged and wanted the poster that used the anti-Semitic language to be santioned. Dr.Bob , then, warned the poster to post in a non-racist manner.
I agree that racist language should not be permitted to be posted here, and I objected to that poster and to othere here that posted that type of language. Are you saying, that when you wrote,[...I am perplexed by those people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me,...], that you consider those that object to the way Dr. Bob moderates the board, in respect to him allowing, innitually, anti-Semitic language to be posted here, to be {troublemakers}? If so, could you clarify why you consider Dr. Bob's innitual allowing of anti-Semitic language to be permissible when you wrote that you ,[...notified the FCC about sites that allowed,({filthy} and [hatefull]) language?
If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you have written and be better able to respond to it accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:06:34
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post » ayuda, posted by lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 11:53:14
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...those that criticize Dr. Bob...have the choice of not reading...why they insist on being {troublemakers}instead is beyond me...].
> Could you clarify if you are saying that those that criticize Dr. Bob are thearfore {troublemakers}? If you are concluding that those that criticize Dr. Bob are troublemakers, then could you clarify what your rational is to make that conclusion? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you wrote, for it is my understanding that no one is infallible and that different points of view about the administration of this site, as well as other topics, is welcomed by Dr. Bob in the administrative board.
> Lou
>I mean the people who keep arguing with him concerning his standards. His standards are outlined in the agreement that we all sign, and if someone doesn't like them, they are not required to read this board or post to it. When people keep up arguments with someone who has already set the parameters that have been agreed to, then I feel that is being a troublemaker, because it certainly isn't being cooperative.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:07:37
In reply to lou's response to ayuda's post-2 » ayuda, posted by Lou pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:24:29
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...as a {researcher},I wanted to offer my {opinion}...].
> Are you saying that you are presenting yourself with some type of credential, as being a researcher, so that a degree of credibility would be projected to the content of your post? If so, could you identify the credential that you have to purport that you are a {researcher}? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of the credential and how, if at all, it gives more credibility to this discussion vs. someone else's post that is not presenting themselves with a credential, and be better able to respond to your post.
> LouI am a second-year PhD student and a published author in history, which is completely a research field.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:17:17
In reply to Lou's respons to ayuda's post-3 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 13:40:32
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...their meds are not working...or are not on them...and may need to be...]. You associated the people that [...do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation...] with the people who may need to be on {med}s, and are the meds that you are referring to, psychotropic drugs?
> If so,are you implying that:
> A. People that do not agree, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
> B. Just people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation of this board, may need to be on psychotropic drugs?
> C. The only way to treat these afflictions is with neuroleptic or psychotropic drugs?
> D. some combination of the above which is___
> E. none of the above
> F. something different which is_____
> Lou
>No, again, I am saying that NO ONE IS REQUIRED TO READ OR POST TO THIS BOARD. Everyone does it of his or her own free will. Dr. Bob is researching people on psychiatric meds, so what is anyone posting to this board for if they are not participating in his research? That is the sole purpose of this board. It is not a general-purpose discussion section, it concerns his research on patients on psychiatric meds, and when we all sign that agreement concerning this board, he makes all that clear.
And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding that they signed an agreement to use this site in a particular manner, and then who keep arguing with him about those parameters, have emotional problems, because they can't see that the simple answer is to just leave the site alone. And he keeps saying that, if you want to have particular discussions, there are other internet places to do so, and people keep arguing with him, even when he repeats what we all agreed to.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:28:09
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to ayuda's post » lou pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:06:34
ayuda,
You wrote,[...I mean the people that keep arguing with him concerning his standards and perameters...I feel that those people are troublemakers because...it is not being cooperative...].
Sorry, but this forum has a provision to object. There have been changes by Dr. Bob, for he says that he [...is open to feedback...]and,[...I am not perfect...].
The administrative board is for [...improvments...]. and how can one write that they want things improved here if they can not object to what they percieve to be something that must be improved? When you wrote that,[...those that keep arguing with him are troublemekers..], are you saying that evryone is really not supposed to argue with him, because evryone must [accept] what they percieve as an injustice or they could be labled by you as an {uncooperative person}? If so, then could you clarify whether or not you favor the provision of the administrative board that Dr. Bob has provided here for those that want [improvement of the site]or if you think that the admin. board should not exist? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:35:03
In reply to Lou's response to ayuda's post-4 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 14:46:34
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...Dr. Bob's research here will probably be very helpful to the psychiatric community as a whole...].
> Could you expound on one of the research aspects that you see here that you think will be helpfull to the psychiatric community? If you could, then I feel that that would be a topic that could be helpfull for this board to innitiate a discussion about.
> LouMost psychiatrists only know how their own patients are responding to meds, or they have to wait until studies are done, and then there's the debate that studies are slanted if they are done by the pharmaceutical company, or if they are done by another entity with its own interests, etc. So, even though this is not a perfect form of research by far, at least Dr. Bob is getting to see patients he would not normally come into contact with (nor who would normally come into contact with each other) debating amongst themselves concerning the efficacy of their treatments.
We get to talk about the side effects and how we feel about them. For instance, a side effect could be listed on the med info as sexual dysfunction. What form does that really take? How do patients rate that side effect as far as whether or not they will stay on that med due to it? How important to a patient (and is there a difference between male and female) is this med that they are willing to live with this side effect? Those are things that a psychiatrist may know from their individual patients, or that a patient may have an opinion about, but Dr. Bob learns how people are handling them, what advice they have for each other, how many people agree or disagree with the "self" help, etc.
So in this respect, he is learning a lot more than, say my own doctor, who only knows either what his patients say as individuals, or what the published tests show. So I think that Dr. Bob is getting to the human side of these treatments through this board.
There are drawbacks -- this is not exactly a "control" group. People have to find this site, it doesn't come to them, and so you have to be interested in "talking" with strangers over the internet -- and have internet access in the first place. And you have to be literate -- which may sound dumb, but this board automatically leaves out illiterate people. There are many reasons why this isn't an exact science, getting people's stories from them (historians experience much the same problems when they take oral histories, which I could explain more in detail at some other time). As many of us admit, we have our good days and our bad days posting to this board. But all in all, I think that the interaction that we all have with each other concerning our treatments and how we interact with each other is something that psychiatrists usually only get in group therapy, and then only their own patients. So I think this idea of strangers who are only brought together through their interest in helping each other through this board -- or in letting out how they feel about their treatment through this board -- is fairly interesting.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:32
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:17:17
ayuda,
you wrote,[...this is the sole purpose of this board...].
It is my understanding that a purpose of this board is for,{support and education...]. It is my understanding that one does not have to be currently taking psychotropic drugs to qualify as a discussant here. In fact, Dr. Bob has allowed me to post an alternitive to taking psychotropic drugs as a treatment for these afflictions. He has answered objections by posters that would like my thought to be censored by writing that he will allow me to post because,[...if it worked for him, then it has the potential to work for others...]. If you are saying that only those on psychotropic drugs are allowed to post here, could you referr me to that statement, if it has been stated by Dr. Bob? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:51
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FM » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:28:09
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...I mean the people that keep arguing with him concerning his standards and perameters...I feel that those people are troublemakers because...it is not being cooperative...].
> Sorry, but this forum has a provision to object. There have been changes by Dr. Bob, for he says that he [...is open to feedback...]and,[...I am not perfect...].
> The administrative board is for [...improvments...]. and how can one write that they want things improved here if they can not object to what they percieve to be something that must be improved? When you wrote that,[...those that keep arguing with him are troublemekers..], are you saying that evryone is really not supposed to argue with him, because evryone must [accept] what they percieve as an injustice or they could be labled by you as an {uncooperative person}? If so, then could you clarify whether or not you favor the provision of the administrative board that Dr. Bob has provided here for those that want [improvement of the site]or if you think that the admin. board should not exist? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
> LouI think that maybe we are talking about two different things, because I don't disagree with you. I am referring to those people who repeatedly do things like run other people down or make disparaging remarks about other people's ethnicity or religion, and then get mad at Dr. Bob for blocking them. I agree that sometimes somethings need to be debated, as you say, and that Dr. Bob understands that this board can benefit from some dissention.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:44:00
In reply to Lou's respons to ayuda's post-FN » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:32
> ayuda,
> you wrote,[...this is the sole purpose of this board...].
> It is my understanding that a purpose of this board is for,{support and education...]. It is my understanding that one does not have to be currently taking psychotropic drugs to qualify as a discussant here. In fact, Dr. Bob has allowed me to post an alternitive to taking psychotropic drugs as a treatment for these afflictions. He has answered objections by posters that would like my thought to be censored by writing that he will allow me to post because,[...if it worked for him, then it has the potential to work for others...]. If you are saying that only those on psychotropic drugs are allowed to post here, could you referr me to that statement, if it has been stated by Dr. Bob? If you could, then I could respond accordingly.
> LouHe's a psychiatrist, and his main interest is people who are under psychiatric care. Again, I do not disagree with you -- yes, there are alternatives, and Dr. Bob certainly has not limited anyone's discussion of alternatives to medication. However, his interest seems to be more in the interaction among people who are feeling their way around psychiatric problems, what information we share with each other that perhaps we are not getting from our doctors -- for the purpose of making treatment better by being a fly on the wall when our pdocs aren't around.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:57:00
In reply to Lou's response to ayuda's post-6 » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 18:31:06
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...it is counter productive to the researcher when people use {name calling}.
> The situation that caused a thread here was about that Dr. Bob [allowed, innitually] {name calling} in the form of anti-Semitic language being used. Posters were outraged that Dr. Bob allowed the {name calling}, such as [greedy jew], and Dr. Bob at first wrote that he would allow the [racist language] for spacific cause of his own. The posters were still outraged and wanted the poster that used the anti-Semitic language to be santioned. Dr.Bob , then, warned the poster to post in a non-racist manner.
> I agree that racist language should not be permitted to be posted here, and I objected to that poster and to othere here that posted that type of language. Are you saying, that when you wrote,[...I am perplexed by those people that do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me,...], that you consider those that object to the way Dr. Bob moderates the board, in respect to him allowing, innitually, anti-Semitic language to be posted here, to be {troublemakers}? If so, could you clarify why you consider Dr. Bob's innitual allowing of anti-Semitic language to be permissible when you wrote that you ,[...notified the FCC about sites that allowed,({filthy} and [hatefull]) language?
> If you could, then I could have a better understanding of what you have written and be better able to respond to it accordingly.
> LouLou, I think #5 is missing, so sorry if it's there and I didn't answer to it.
No, I would never support anyone's desire to use slurs or other offensive terms or language -- and I agree that they should never be allowed in a board in which people discuss such sensitive information as we do about our psyches. As a historian, I do not think that slurs have ever served any useful purpose, and I certainly see a lot of them every day in my research.
When I spoke of the sites I have notified the FCC about, they are ones that are from news sites, which any child could go to, that have subject lines with expletives and other offensive language just out there for everyone to see. I am saddened by the amount of anger and spite people seem to have and feel free to express on the internet. It scares me.
I did not get a chance to read all the posts associated with this thread, and did not know that there was that issue that you described. To be honest, I was just looking for some new debate to get into because the Lexapro thread has gotten kind of boring, and I am procrastinating writing a research paper I've been working on for months. And I get interested in those people Dr. Bob blocks, and the reasons behind it. And it usually is for being uncivil, so I am astonished that he would permit some level of incivility. I apoligize if it ever appeared that I support or agree with any sort of labeling or name-calling, because it upsets me greatly that people do that.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:01:30
In reply to Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
> NikkiT2,
> You wrote,"I don;t think Dr Bob has say that it is for us to be able to appreciate that it must do."
> Could you examine your statement above and see if there are any words that are either misspelled or have some other grammatical error? If you could, and you do find such, could you correct the words and grammer? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post and respond accordingly.
> LouAs I am constantly correcting my student's papers, I think that I can clarify that what NikkiT2 meant was: "I don't think that Dr. Bob has to say that it is difficult [to administrate this board] for us to be able to appreciate that it must be so."
NikkiT2 can correct me if I interpreted that incorrectly.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:04:32
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FM » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:39:51
ayuda,
You wrote as an answer to my request for clarification that you were referring to [...the people that continue to make disparging remarks about a person's ethniciicity or religion and then get mad for being blocked...].
Could you identify where this has happened here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post, for I have never read a post by someone that wanted to be allowed to use anti-Semitic language , or racial or religious disparging remarks and was objecting to one being blocked for doing so.
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:13:38
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-Fo » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:04:32
> ayuda,
> You wrote as an answer to my request for clarification that you were referring to [...the people that continue to make disparging remarks about a person's ethniciicity or religion and then get mad for being blocked...].
> Could you identify where this has happened here? If you could, then I could have a better understanding of your post, for I have never read a post by someone that wanted to be allowed to use anti-Semitic language , or racial or religious disparging remarks and was objecting to one being blocked for doing so.
> LouPeruse the "please be civil" and "you are blocked" messages from Dr. Bob and their threads, that's what I did. I'm not saying that anyone wants to persist in using slurs, I am saying that when Dr. Bob notifies people of incivility, sometimes they argue with him about being blocked.
My interpretation of this site, and no one has to agree with me on this, is that this is Dr. Bob's treehouse, and he doesn't have to let us play in it if he doesn't want.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:23:12
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-3 » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 20:17:17
ayuda,
You wrote,[...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
In reply to Re: Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-Fo » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:13:38
ayuda,
You wrote that [... it is my intrepretation of this site is that it is Dr. Bob's treehouse and he doesn't have to let us play in it if he doesn't want...].
I feel very sad that you interpret this site as such. This is a forum open to evryone, for the word, "welcome" is used by Dr. Bob .
Lou
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:02:24
In reply to Re: Lou's respons to ayuda's post-FP » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:23:12
> ayuda,
> You wrote,[...And yes, I believe that people who are incapable of understanding...have emotional problems...and can't see the simple answer is to just leave the site alone...].
> I feel extreamly hurt by your statement because I feel that you are jumping to a conclusion about people that use the administrative board to request address of what [they percieve to be injustices] when they are invited to do so by Dr. Bob and then you conclude that they are {...incapeable of understanding and... have emotional problems...].
> Lou
>Well, number one, most everyone who is human has some problem or other. But I don't even understand how you are interpreting what I've said. I am at a loss for understanding your confusion. People who get surly when corrected, or who are argumentative when criticized, have emotional problems. If an adult person is not capable of accepting criticism without lashing out, then they have emotional problems. I don't think that is something that is just my opinion, or is irrational to state. I think that is one of the bases for psychiatry, which is what this discussion board is about.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:10:16
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
> ayuda,
> You wrote that [... it is my intrepretation of this site is that it is Dr. Bob's treehouse and he doesn't have to let us play in it if he doesn't want...].
> I feel very sad that you interpret this site as such. This is a forum open to evryone, for the word, "welcome" is used by Dr. Bob .
> LouNo, this isn't an open forum. It is a private forum. That is why we sign consent forms to be able to participate in it. What makes you think that it is an open forum? Because it is on the internet? What role do you think that the consent forms play if this is an open forum? Do you know of any other "open forums" that require you to sign a consent form prior to usage? It was evident to me when I agreed to the use of this site that I was signing-on to participate in a private research project. Was that not clear to everyone? Dr. Bob DOES welcome people, but they also have to agree to the terms of the site. That is not consistent with an "open" forum, that is consistent with a private research forum.
Posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 22:39:50
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
Just out of curiosity, why do you participate in Psycho-Babble?
For example, when I first went on Lexapro, it was newly approved for use in the US, and there was very little public information about it. When I did an internet search on Yahoo! for it, Psycho-Babble came up as the first "hit." I became interested in the idea that I could find out how Lexapro was working (or not) for others, what their side effects were and compare that with my own experiences. Also, I have gotten some good advice that I may not have been able to get from my doctor concerning medications and other psychiatric care-related topics from people who have experienced them. I have been able to make suggestions concerning my care with my doctor through this learning experience.
So what attracted you to Psycho-Babble? In the FAQ's for the site, Dr. Bob says that: "Another goal of these boards is to help us understand how online communities work and affect the mental health of their members...." What do you think about that goal? Do you think that it implies that how we interact -- like what questions we ask each other, what kind of information we ask for clarification on, and what responses we prepare for each other -- are also under the microscope? Do you think that it implies that interaction on this site may have either positive or negative effects on the mental health of the participants?
I'm just curious as to your opinion about that.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 23:14:33
In reply to Re: Shutting down the Babbles » Dinah, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 11:25:43
> I am perplexed by those people who do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and who submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me.
Their intent may be not to cause trouble (though I have to admit I used to think that sometimes), but, for example, to show support for another poster who's been blocked.
> This is not a public forum, though people may think it is because it is on the Internet. It is really a private forum, we "sign" agreements to use this board according to Dr. Bob's rules
Well, it's not completely open, but it's not by invitation only, either...
Bob
Posted by ayuda on March 24, 2003, at 7:21:13
In reply to Re: people who do not agree, posted by Dr. Bob on March 23, 2003, at 23:14:33
> > I am perplexed by those people who do not agree with Dr. Bob's moderation, and who submit posts criticizing him. They have the choice of just not reading this board ever again, and why they insist on being troublemakers instead is beyond me.
>
> Their intent may be not to cause trouble (though I have to admit I used to think that sometimes), but, for example, to show support for another poster who's been blocked.
>
> > This is not a public forum, though people may think it is because it is on the Internet. It is really a private forum, we "sign" agreements to use this board according to Dr. Bob's rules
>
> Well, it's not completely open, but it's not by invitation only, either...
>
> BobI should not have used the term "troublemaker," it is a generalization and a label and I should know better than to use such terms, so I apologize, even though you didn't chastise me for it (I chastise myself).
I think of your creation and moderation of this site like a shopping mall: malls are in the public domain, and anyone can enter them and shop (and without that access the mall would not be profitable), but they are privately owned and operated, and there are rules to follow, and a customer who breaks a rule (no matter how "unfair" the owner's rule may seem for a public place), risks at least temporary banishment by the management. People often think they are in a public place in a mall because it is also not by invitation only, but in fact are in a private realm where not everything "goes." Does that seem like a fair analogy?
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:44:25
In reply to Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 17:44:06
apart from a ; instead of a ' in don't, no other error. I think it could quite easily be assumed that this typo meant '
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:47:52
In reply to Re: Lou's question to NikkiT2's post » Lou Pilder, posted by ayuda on March 23, 2003, at 21:01:30
Thanks for that.. I'm always hitting ; instead of '... short finger syndrome!! *laugh*
Nikki
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 24, 2003, at 14:50:39
In reply to Lou's respomse to ayuda's post-FQ » ayuda, posted by Lou Pilder on March 23, 2003, at 21:30:21
Lou.. the mat at my front door has welcome on it.. infact, it says "welcome all species".. This does not mean that I welcome people into my home who I do not want there at that particular time. I do not welcome strangers into my home. I do not welcome local cats into my home. I only welcome those that I have asked to visit me.
Welcome is a greeting, not an invitation.
Nikki
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.