![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 8 to 32 of 35. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:16:03
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
You wrote,[...not going to...this person listed a song title...].
Could a poster post a song title that the song had words that are offensive to others in it like some that Wal-Mart will not accept to be sold by them?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 24, 2005, at 21:45:37
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:02:28
> You wrote,[...I don't see how saying your favorite book...could be uncivil...].
Yup.
> What if one wrote here that their favorite book was,[..The Protocals of the Learned Elders of Zion...]?
IMO that would be one example of saying what your favourite book was. And so that would be fine.
> It is my understanding that it is OK to write what you believe as long as what you believe {does not put down others}.
Saying that something is your 'favourite' book doesn't really entail any beliefs except perhaps
'I believe there are books'
'I believe this book is my favourite book'
I don't see how either of those can be considered uncivil.>The question then becomes if the poster believes what the book or song purports.
But the poster didn't post anything about whether they believed what it purports or not. When people see whether posts are civil or not we have to go with what the poster actually says. We can't 'imagine how they might' answer further questions and consider their original post uncivil because of stuff that they didn't even say.
>Dr. Hsiung has asked another poster her in a similar situation if they belived that they were saying that (all) or just {them{. The poster replied {all}.
>Perhaps Dinah or Mark H could do what D. Hsiung did in this type of situation and ask the poster if the blood of Jesus is necessarry for all people to have their sins washed or that others can have their sins washed without the blood of Jesus
This seems to be worrying you, Lou.
Why don't you ask them?
Posted by alexandra_k on March 24, 2005, at 21:52:45
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 20:16:03
> Could a poster post a song title that the song had words that are offensive to others in it like some that Wal-Mart will not accept to be sold by them?
If the song title was uncivil, that might be one thing...
Sometimes there may be ambiguity between whether the author is
(a) expressing their personal belief
(b) expressing what they take to be true for everyoneor whatever...
In such cases it can be useful to apply what is called the 'principle of charity'.
To assume the best reading (ie the civil one) if at all possible.
In some cases that civil reading really doesn't seem to fit. IMO that is why some posts are considered uncivil. If there is a civil reading, though, then it is charitable to the poster to interpret what they say in a positive light.
I dare say that some song titles and some exerpts from what may be 'peoples favourite books' may well be uncivil.
Why don't you give the poster the benefit of the doubt.
Or ask them for clarification if this is really bugging you??
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 24, 2005, at 22:27:08
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
You wrote,[..."Im not going to...this person listed {a song title}...].
The statement in question is what I consider to be what could be what determines acceptability or not. If the fact that the statement is a song title means that whatever the statement is can be considered acceptable, then what about the {poem} by Mark Morford?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 5:35:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
The guidline for the faith board is that some foundations of some faiths can not be posted. I do not think that it matters if the poster believes it or not.
Also, whether the poster is telling others , I do not think that that has anything to do with if the foundation can be posted or not, which is my understanding from the past practice here.
That is why I am requesting that a halt be put on that thread so that we can determine if [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...] is considered to be a foundation of Christianity or not, and then if the foundation of chrisianity in relation to [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...]can or can not be posted here in accordance with the guidlines of the forum. Because since you are allowing it, I am asking for the halt so that when Dr. Hsiung returns from being away that he can make his determination as to the acceptability or not of being allowed to be posted as a song title if [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...] is in fact one of the foundations of Christianity.
Now the word {nothing} in, [..{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...] could also be a part of this determination by Dr. Hsiung because of other posts in the past here.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 6:28:10
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on March 24, 2005, at 20:09:58
Dinah,
As to the statement,[..nothing but the blood of Jesus..] could be determined as acceptablr here { because it is a song title, or words of the song} came up with me IRL.
My children attended a school where there were few jewish children. The school was going to put on a "Christmas' assembly with the song ,"Silent Night". I objected to the administration and their argument to allow it was that it was a song. My reply to them was then they could sing it in May.
Then the school told me that they would have a theater group perform a play for the children durring this time. The play was a Christmas play. I objected. They said that it was a {play} so that they could do it. I appealed and they did put on the play and I attended. When the singing of a song about christmas was inthe plsy, the theater members hummed the song. I was the only person then that objected. But I raised the issue of the school being used to {advance a particular religion}.. This is what made sense to some people in the community for the first time. Then the board issued a statement that they would not allow one religion to be {favored} and changed their policy about this at the christmas season. The Klu Klux Klan representative objected and the board did not back down. Today, that school district is in the top schools in the area and the community now understands my point that I was not against christmas, for anyone can celebrate christmas in their homes and such, but I was against the schools being used to advance a particular religion.
My point here is that this forum is made up of a wide veriety if different people and that any particular religion to be afforded any exemption from the guidlines is IMO an unsound mental-health practice. The question to me then is if the statement is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum and if the statement[...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus is going to allowed because it is the words of a song or not, and if it would be allowed even if it was not the words of a song. because the guidlines write about [...foundations of faiths and putting down those of other faiths..]. If it is allowed here to post something that says that [... {nothing} but the blood of Jesus can wash away sins...], then could I not post what the Rider said to me?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 9:54:43
In reply to Lou's reply to Dinah-advnc » Dinah, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 6:28:10
The faith board guidelines say you can tell your beliefs or feelings as long as they do not put down other faiths or say that those who believe differently are wrong.
To me listing a favorite book or song is like stating it as it is *my* favorite, not saying that others have to agree.
But I also understand that this is the time of year for extra vigilance. Easter has historically been the time for fire and brimstone type preachers to stir up the parishoners, who would then go out and cause great harm in Jewish communities.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 10:23:39
In reply to Re: The way I see it (for what it's worth) » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 9:54:43
AuntieMel,
You wrote,[...as long as...not put down...not say...wrong..].
Let us look at the statement in question hypothetically{ as if it was not in a song}.
[...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...can wash away sins...].
Now could there be the potential, in your opinion, for some others to consider that the statement could mean that Jews and others that do not accept that the blood of Jesus is the only thing,(because the statement uses the word {nothing} that can wash away sins are being "put down" according to the past practice of the use of that phrase?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 11:05:08
In reply to Re: The way I see it (for what it's worth) » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 9:54:43
AuntieMel,
You wrote,[...the faith board guidlines...not put down...not say others are wrong...]
In the statement,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus...wash away sins...]could there be another aspect of the guidlines for the faith board thatcould apply here?
There is also the guidline to be supportive. In your opinion, is the statement supportive if there is the potential in your opinion for it to mean that Jews and others that do not accept that [...nothing but the blood of Jesus...] can not have their sins washed away because the statement in question uses the word,{nothing} but the blood of Jesus?
Another aspect of the guidlines is if the statement will be good for the community as a whole. You wrote about historical events of Jews being harmed after easter services sermons. Do you mean that the statement in question , then, could have the potential to not be good for the community as a whole because there are jewish posters here and others that do not believe that nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away sins and that there could be the potential, IYO, for that thread to escalate into ,perhaps statements that could have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings including, but not limited to that the Jews killed Christ?
Lou
Posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 13:42:47
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-~suprtiv? » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 11:05:08
A two pronged question ...
I went back and read the actual lyrics and what they said was "what can wash away my sins"
The key word there is *my*
If it said *your* instead of my - but still in song lyrics I would call it a grey area for Dr. Bob.
And if it said *your* and was *not* in a song I would have considered it against the guidelines.
When I read the lyrics they seemed to me to be reflective and inward-looking, which I don't think would be likely to incite anything. I think (my opinion only, which could be flawed) as long as people are inward-looking there will be no harm.
I think, too, when people list favorite religious songs they are usually considering the lyrics last. Before the actual words could come the music, or memories of happy times, or something else not word related.
I'm a bit partial to Amazing Grace, partly because I like the song, but mostly because of the history of how it was written.
Am I making any sense?
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 16:14:31
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-~suprtiv?, posted by AuntieMel on March 25, 2005, at 13:42:47
> A two pronged question ...
>
> I went back and read the actual lyrics and what they said was "what can wash away my sins"
>
> The key word there is *my*
>
> If it said *your* instead of my - but still in song lyrics I would call it a grey area for Dr. Bob.
>
> And if it said *your* and was *not* in a song I would have considered it against the guidelines.
>
> When I read the lyrics they seemed to me to be reflective and inward-looking, which I don't think would be likely to incite anything. I think (my opinion only, which could be flawed) as long as people are inward-looking there will be no harm.
>
> I think, too, when people list favorite religious songs they are usually considering the lyrics last. Before the actual words could come the music, or memories of happy times, or something else not word related.
>
> I'm a bit partial to Amazing Grace, partly because I like the song, but mostly because of the history of how it was written.
>
> Am I making any sense?Auntie Mel,
You wrote in your post above,[...the key word...is *my*...].
But in the statement in question , it writes, [...{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...].
Someone could think, IMO, that there is the potential for the statement to mean that {evryone's} sins are not going to be washed away unless they agree with the statement because the statement says [...{nothing}...]. Is there a difference between {nothing} and {only}?
But there is much more to this.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
In reply to Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on March 25, 2005, at 16:14:31
Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
Only the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
What is the difference???
They are both MINE not YOURS and besides which the poster just said they liked the song - not even that they believed what it was saying.
They didn't even post the lyrics to the whole song - they just posted the title.
A whole bunch of stuff has the 'potential' to be considered uncivil.
Personally, I prefer not to look for that...
There is enough that is glaringly uncivil without going looking for it...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 6:17:06
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
> Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> Only the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> What is the difference???
>
> They are both MINE not YOURS and besides which the poster just said they liked the song - not even that they believed what it was saying.
>
> They didn't even post the lyrics to the whole song - they just posted the title.
>
> A whole bunch of stuff has the 'potential' to be considered uncivil.
>
> Personally, I prefer not to look for that...
>
> There is enough that is glaringly uncivil without going looking for it...A_k,
In your post above, you wrote,[...not even that they believed what it was saying...].
Did I not request for the poster to declare if they believed what it was saying? What is the poster's reply to my request for clarification?
If only the blood of Jesus can wash away the poster's sins, then could those that do not hold to that doctrine have a way to wash away their sins? If so, then could the statement,[..{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...]be accurate?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 6:29:42
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
a_k,
You wrote,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus....only the blood of Jesus...can wash away my sins...They are both mine, not yours...they just posted the title...going looking for it...].
It is not my intention to [...going looking for it...] for the post was posted for the entire forum and plainly visible.
There is another aspect to the forum in the guidlines that write,[...be sensitive to the feelings of others...]. There are numerous posts exibiting what that means here as to the past practice here. If it is acceptable here to write,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...], could it also be acceptable here in your opinion, for me to write,[...The Rider said {to me}...]?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 7:35:00
In reply to Re: Lou's response to AuntieMel's post-notigonly » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 25, 2005, at 22:51:34
> Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> Only the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins.
>
> What is the difference???
>
> They are both MINE not YOURS and besides which the poster just said they liked the song - not even that they believed what it was saying.
>
> They didn't even post the lyrics to the whole song - they just posted the title.
>
> A whole bunch of stuff has the 'potential' to be considered uncivil.
>
> Personally, I prefer not to look for that...
>
> There is enough that is glaringly uncivil without going looking for it...
a_k,
There is another aspect of the guidline here that states,[...different points of view are encouraged...please be sensitive to the feelings of others...]. The POV of the poster in question,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus can...], I respect for that poster or anyone else here to write. What I am concerned about here is the opening page of the faith board under {guidlines} and {spacific examples}and the other writings of Dr. Hsiung concerning me, that could have the potential IMO for some others to think that taking all that Dr. Hsiung has written about what I want to post is unacceptable here because , IMO, the proposed post of mine according to what Dr. Hsiung has written concerning me, could fall into the guidline of the forum of {...putting down those of other faiths...] or fall thearfore in the guidline,[...be sensitve to the feelings of others...], or fall in the guidline,[... will not be good for the community as a whole...]. But in my proposed post, [...The Rider ...said {to me}...] is what I am bringing up for a determination as to if [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...] is acceptable, then the statement does not [...put down those of other faiths...], and does not fall in the guidline od [...be sensitive to the feelings of others..] and does not fall in the guidlines of,[...will not be good for the community as a whole...].
Now if the statement [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...] does not fall in the catagory in the guidlines of the forum as being unacceptable, then could you express why ,in your opinion,if [...the Rider said {to me}...], as to how would my proposed post be unacceptable here?
There is another guidline that states,[...some foundations of some faiths can not be posted...]I interpret that to mean that those foundations that can not be posted could fall into the catagory of,[...please be sensitive to the feelings of others...]. In Dr. Hsiung's writings concerning me, could not those writings have the potential for one to think,IYO, that the statements concerning me are saying that the foundation of my faith can not be posted here? And is whether I belive or not going to make it acceptable or not? It is the {foundation} that Dr. Hsiung writes that can not be posted. I do not think that if the poster belives it or not , or even quotes someone else, that one can post here a foundation of a faith that Dr. Hsiung has indicated [...puts down those of other faiths...] which I interpret as also falling into the catagory of,[...be sensitive to the feelings of others...].
In, [..The Rider....said {to me}...] and [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away (my} sins...] are these both not foundations of the respective faiths? Then can one fall in the catagory of [...please be sensitive to the feeling of others...or their point of view...] and the other not fall into that catagory of,[...please be sensitive to the feelings of others...or their point of view...]?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 15:44:36
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 6:17:06
>In your post above, you wrote,[...not even that they believed what it was saying...].
Did I not request for the poster to declare if they believed what it was saying?Yes you did. But in the post that you are requesting a determination on they did not say whether they believed it or not. If they post ANOTHER post then perhaps you will go on to request determination as to the acceptability of the OTHER post. But in the post in question they did not say they believed it. As I said already we can't say that a post is uncivil because of things it didn't even say.
>If only the blood of Jesus can wash away the poster's sins, then could those that do not hold to that doctrine have a way to wash away their sins?
Absolutely. Just not the posters sins. It doesn't make any comment at all about the sins of other posters. So that leaves it open that other people may have different ways of washing away their sins.
>If so, then could the statement,[..{nothing} but the blood of Jesus...]be accurate?
Yes.
'Nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away my sins' doesn't preclude 'nothing but the (whatever you like) can wash away YOUR sins'. Both can be true.>It is not my intention to [...going looking for it...] for the post was posted for the entire forum and plainly visible.
I know, Lou. That wasn't quite what I meant. It is ok. I am sorry if you felt hurt or indignant that I said that.
>If it is acceptable here to write,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...], could it also be acceptable here in your opinion, for me to write,[...The Rider said {to me}...]?
How about 'I believe that the rider said to me...'
But then you also need to consider what the rider is saying, and whether it is a message for YOU or whether it is supposed to be a message for EVERYONE (and in the latter case that might be considered insensitive to others faiths).>Now if the statement [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away {my} sins...] does not fall in the catagory in the guidlines of the forum as being unacceptable, then could you express why ,in your opinion,if [...the Rider said {to me}...], as to how would my proposed post be unacceptable here?
Depends what the Rider said. Whether it was a message to you or to everyone. Is it revealing 'your truth' or 'THE truth'. If it is the latter then people of other faiths may feel put down or whatever.
> [...nothing but the blood of Jesus can wash away (my} sins...]That doesn't put down anyone elses faith.
> [..The Rider....said {to me}...]
I don't know whether that does or not. All depends on what the rider said...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 15:58:37
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post- » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 15:44:36
alexandra_k,
You wrote.[...it all depends on what the Rider said...].
Then does it depend also on what the song says?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 16:01:11
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-dpndon » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 15:58:37
> You wrote.[...it all depends on what the Rider said...].
> Then does it depend also on what the song says?If the poster posted the lyrics to the whole song then yes, a civility determination would be made on that basis.
If you post what you believe the rider said to you then yes, a civility determination would be made on that basis.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 16:07:57
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-dpndon » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 15:58:37
a_k,
Let us look at what the song says {if you agree that it depends on what the song says}.
The song says,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus...} Now I ddid not put in {can wash...{my} sins...] because I only want to present what the song says.
As to what the Rider said, let us use the following:
The Rider said to me,"You shall not commit adultery.".
Now in both cases, what is said is said to the person. The poster of the song does not say that nothing but the blood of Jesus will ...{others}sins. The Rider said {to me} that {I} shall not commit adultery, not others.
Now if someone wants to have a faith that allows one to commit adultery, the Rider did not say to others that they could not commit adultery, just to me. Could you clarify if there is something that could allow one to be acceptable here and not the other?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 18:00:19
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-dpndon@2, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 16:07:57
Ok. So firstly do we agree that because the poster didn't post the whole song what the whole song says is irrelevant to whether their post was acceptable to the guidelines of this forum etc???
I think we do agree on that, but maybe I am wrong there...
> Let us look at what the song says {if you agree that it depends on what the song says}.
But yeah, I see how you are interested in that because of your rider stuff...
> The song says,[...nothing but the blood of Jesus...} Now I ddid not put in {can wash...{my} sins...] because I only want to present what the song says.
Yeah. I get you.
> As to what the Rider said, let us use the following:
> The Rider said to me,"You shall not commit adultery.".
> Now in both cases, what is said is said to the person. The poster of the song does not say that nothing but the blood of Jesus will ...{others}sins. The Rider said {to me} that {I} shall not commit adultery, not others.
> Now if someone wants to have a faith that allows one to commit adultery, the Rider did not say to others that they could not commit adultery, just to me. Could you clarify if there is something that could allow one to be acceptable here and not the other?IMO both would be fine.
I think that is a good paralell.
I can't see any reason why one would be acceptable and the other not.
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 18:08:16
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-dpndon@2 » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 18:00:19
a-k,
You wrote,[...I can'see why one would be acceptable and the other not...].
Then if my proposed post has already been determined to be unacceptable, then, IYO, could [...nothing but the blood of Jesus...] also be cconsidered unacceptable here?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 18:35:11
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-dpndon@2 » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 18:00:19
a_k,
You wrote,[...IMO, both would be fine...].
Could we look at another example ?
{The Rider said to me, "You shall love your God with all your your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind and you shall love your neighbor as yourself".}
The Rider said this to me, not to others. Others could not love their neighbor as themselves and others could not love {my} God with all their heart, and with all their soul and with all their mind and I am not saying that anyone should worship my God, for the Rider said it to me. There could be a God of others that says to those that worship that God that they have no commandment to love their neighbor as themselves. Could you clarify if anything would change if this was the example?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 20:31:25
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-lovgd » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 18:35:11
I don't see anything wrong with either of those, Lou.
Have they been considered unacceptable?
Do you have the link to that?
Maybe I still have a lot to learn about what is and is not acceptable...
Or maybe there was a bit more to it...
Posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 20:40:24
In reply to Re: Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-lovgd » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 20:31:25
a_k,
You wrote,[...I do not see anything wrong with either...]
Could we look at one more?
The Rider said to me,"I am {your} god. You shall not worship idols."
My God said {to me} that {I} shall not worship idols. He did not say that others could not worship idols , and there may be Gods that allow the peeople that worship them to worship idols.
Could you clarify if this example could be any different from the previous ones in relation to being acceptable if [...nothing but the blood of Jesus ...]is acceptable here?
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on March 26, 2005, at 21:28:48
In reply to Lou's reply to alexandra_k- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on March 26, 2005, at 20:40:24
> Could we look at one more?
Sure.
> The Rider said to me,"I am {your} god. You shall not worship idols."
> My God said {to me} that {I} shall not worship idols. He did not say that others could not worship idols , and there may be Gods that allow the people that worship them to worship idols.IMO (for what it is worth) that would be the same as the other cases..
Though one persons 'idol' might be another persons 'god' and all that...
> Could you clarify if this example could be any different from the previous ones in relation to being acceptable if [...nothing but the blood of Jesus ...]is acceptable here?
But I am not a moderator or a deputy or an assistant or whatever. This is just my opinion (for what it is worth). My understanding (which may be my misunderstanding). But I don't see what is wrong with any of the above cases...
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.