![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 33. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by used2b on April 10, 2005, at 19:31:10
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050408/msgs/482332.html
I suppose telling people I don't beleive in Santa Claus could make them feel put down, too, even if I support my belief with facts about the reality of the myth. My statement was an "I statement" solely descriptive of my own perception, and only offered as an explanation of why I don't want to engage in affection that to me feels innappropriate.
Though in the interests of civility, i commented only on my perception, my perceptions are likely consistent with behavioral science, in that pretense is a basic element of human behavior. My perception could very well be accurate insofar was we routinely construct behaviors intended to only partially reveal our internal state while masking other feelings. I don't see how it is civil of a scholar to tell me what other scholars believe about human behavior is somehow an incivil finding.
Are you certain you are not just trying to demonstrate your authority? Please explain how my report of my perceptions can be construed as incivil.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 13:24:02
In reply to Please explain your opinion, posted by used2b on April 10, 2005, at 19:31:10
> > it is all pretense to me.
>
> My statement was an "I statement" solely descriptive of my own perception, and only offered as an explanation of why I don't want to engage in affection that to me feels innappropriate.It can be tricky, how exactly to word I-statements. The FAQ links to an explanation by Dinah:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
If you'd rather not engage, just don't reply?
Bob
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 18:49:37
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 11, 2005, at 13:24:02
>
> It can be tricky, how exactly to word I-statements.I wonder why someone would publish a unique rule of usage that routinely tricks people. Maybe the work isn't complete yet.
The FAQ links to an explanation by Dinah:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20040112/msgs/320097.html
>The cited discourse does not address the construction I submitted. Nowhere in her discourse does she assert that a prepositional phrase establishing a first-person stance, followed by a declaration of a personal perception, is not a valid "I-statement".
The citation critiques four constructions. One is a universal assertion. The other two are universal assertions based on the authority of the writer, and are not first-person declarations of personal perceptions. The writer proposes avoiding "statements that are not solely about 'I' but include references to he she or it." But this would include ALL first person sentences in which the predicate includes both a verb and an object. Most prose includes subject, verb and object. Try composing even one paragraph in the first person without using an object. The proposed model sentence even includes an object.
After stating we are to avoid all objects, and without summarizing the central premise of why the model sentence is presumed compliant, the discourse proposes that we select a temporal conjunction to describe the relationship of object to subject. The temporal conjunction is represented as minimizing the relationship of the object to the subject sufficiently to make the sentence entirely about the subject. The discourse implies the sentence "I jumped when I heard the noise" is not about both me and the noise.
Dinah proposes the correct style in this forum for relating perceptions is to say, "I was offended when I saw the movie."
This is a first-person subject followed by a predicate in which the direct object of a passive verb is associated by a temporal conjunction to an indirect object, which is the subject.
The statement tells us nothing about why the writer was offended. Was somebody talking loudly in the theater? Did she find a foreign object in her snacks? Did the movie violate community standards? Is she easily offended?
If she is not telling us about her perceptions of the movie, she might as well tell us "I was offended once." But if in any way the statement implies the movie is related to the offense against her, it violates the rule the discourse proffers in the following paragraphs, which discourage statements that connect a perception with the object of a perception.
Dinah says her statement "is a statement about me, about my reactions, and really isn't about anyone or their movie." The conjunction "when" suggests the movie may be relevant only as an indicator of time and place. But the object of the sentence is someone's movie.
If a writer is to exclude any possibility that the movie was the source of offense, she should avoid the passive voice ("I was offended") because that implies she was acted upon by something. She does not tell us if she acted on herself, or if the movie acted upon her. She just tells us when it happened.
The statement, "I was offended when I saw the movie" is obviously not about some other offense that occured coincident to the movie. Standard usage suggests a direct object acts upon its indirect object, even though a writer might avoid stating the obvious by using a conjunction (when) that minimizes the relationship of the direct object with the indirect object. Unless we are offered mitigating information about some other object that inspired her feeling of offense, we can only assume we are being told about the temporal relationship of the indirect and direct object because the relationship is relevant.
She is telling us her reaction in response to the movie -- somebody's movie. And she is doing it in a passive voice that implies something acted upon her, rather than an active voice that tells us she is the actor. The object "movie" makes it about the movie. Even though the conjunction "when" offers no formal explanation as to why the movie is relevant to her being offended, the meaning is clear. She was offended. If she is not telling us the movie was offensive to her values, what is she telling us? She might not be saying "I found the movie offensive", (to everyone) but she is suggesting that "To me, the movie was offensive."
Further, Dinah's guidelines imply that the writer was actually offended. It is only her perception that she was offended, yet she states it as fact, so it does not appear to be an "I statement" about her feelings at all, but rather an allegation that she was offended at a certain time and place.
If I were to place my words in Dinah's suggested format, it would be less of an I-statement than what I submitted. The statement would have read, "I see people being pretentious when I see huggies and smileys in Internet posts." I suspect the statement would have earned the same administrative admonishment, regardless its better coherence with the suggested guideline.
> If you'd rather not engage, just don't reply?
>
> BobThat is an imperative command is punctuated as a question. And it misrepresents my statement.
I didn't say I would rather not engage, but only that I would rather not engage in certain types of communication, specifically the use of keyboard symbols to indicate affection. Maybe you should try replacing sincere human touch with a few pixels of symbolically arranged light in a VGA device. You might conclude the symbols are not real to you either.
Let me ask this another way. Is it an accetable topic of dialogue here for me to represent any version of my actual condition in which I often perceive human affection toward me as pretentious? If so, is it allowed even though I might have confidence in the accuracy of my perceptions?
Posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 19:55:52
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 18:49:37
> Let me ask this another way. Is it an accetable topic of dialogue here for me to represent any version of my actual condition in which I often perceive human affection toward me as pretentious?
Dear Used2b,
I'm not answering on behalf of Dr. Bob, but I predict that his short answer will be "no."
Over the years, Dr. Bob has been consistent in letting people know that criticism of others is not civil by his definition, regardless of how it is phrased. It took me an embarrassingly long time to figure that out and to adjust my style of writing. I still fail from time to time.
Can I give you a big hug? (((((((Used2B)))))))
Mark H.
Posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 20:01:46
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion » used2b, posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 19:55:52
>
> Can I give you a big hug? (((((((XXXXXX)))))))
>
> Mark H.
>I've twice now addressed the subject of my discomfort with symbolic affection directed toward me in on-line dialgoue.
Can you wait for an answer? Can you take no for an answer?
Just don't post to me any more.
Posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 20:11:22
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion » used2b, posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 19:55:52
Posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 21:43:18
In reply to Apologies to All for My Lame Attempt at Humor (nm), posted by Mark H. on April 11, 2005, at 20:11:22
On behalf of, well..just me, as a reader, thanks for apologizing, Mark.
Sometimes humor can be such a dangerous and tricky animal. At least for me. Glad to see I'm not the only one who gives in sometimes...oops :-)
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on April 11, 2005, at 23:22:14
In reply to Re: Apologies to All for My Lame Attempt at Humor » Mark H., posted by 10derHeart on April 11, 2005, at 21:43:18
thanks Mark
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:25:04
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 11, 2005, at 18:49:37
> If I were to place my words in Dinah's suggested format, it would be less of an I-statement than what I submitted. The statement would have read, "I see people being pretentious when I see huggies and smileys in Internet posts." I suspect the statement would have earned the same administrative admonishment, regardless its better coherence with the suggested guideline.
Right.
> > If you'd rather not engage, just don't reply?
>
> I didn't say I would rather not engage, but only that I would rather not engage in certain types of communication, specifically the use of keyboard symbols to indicate affection.OK, it's fine (1) to say that or (2) just not to reply to those types of communication.
> Let me ask this another way. Is it an accetable topic of dialogue here for me to represent any version of my actual condition in which I often perceive human affection toward me as pretentious?
The problem there is "pretentious". When someone behaves pretentiously, how does that make you feel?
Bob
Posted by henrietta on April 12, 2005, at 19:30:17
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:25:04
snort oh really db!!!
Posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 21:11:08
In reply to Re: Please explain your opinion, posted by Dr. Bob on April 12, 2005, at 18:25:04
>When someone behaves pretentiously, how does that make you feel?
>
> BobNobody makes me feel anything. I learned that in Therapy 101. Are you telling me others, and not I, am in control of my feelings?
Are you asking rhetorically or are you honestly inviting an answer because you believe there might be a valid perspective other than the one you hold? Because if you were asking rhetorically, you would only be pretending to ask.
In the event you are asking honestly, I will offer that I allow myself to feel various emotions in response to pretense. Since pretense is the foundation of all theater, it depends on the nature of the performance, and the extent to which I suspend disbelief. I am so accustomed to theatrical pretense, I usually feel nothing, unless it is supplemented by surround sound and theatrical lighting.
My habituation to theatrical pretense might influence my profound tolerance toward social pretense. As I implied in the post to which you responded hatefully, I see pretense all day, every day - usually starting with the first commercial message I see affixed to food containers on my kitchen shelves.
I often feel alienated when I witness routine social pretense, such as fashion, vocal inflection, posture and casual mock affection but I generally try to feel something else. Perhaps as a result of living in the Deep South, I have developed strong immunities to most social pretense, but maintain an ability to pretend as needed.In face-to-face relationships, people generally know by the way my eyes track and fail to dilate responsively not to approach me with pretentious behavior others might consider affectionate. As a politically informed Southerner, I know social pretense goes way beyond cultural rites that affect racism. Social pretense is used to define economic class roles and interpersonal power relationships.
Nobel Prize winning behaviorist Konrad Lorenz related the role of pretense in cultural rites, starting by explaining the role of pretend aggression in the mating rituals of tropical fish. His work informs my ability to identify the role of pretense in most social rites, and especially in displays of affection. Among other examples, Lorenz highlights the role of pretense in cultural rites of humans by a reference to the measured steps of college professors as they walk the halls of an academy.
As a Southern American, I have learned to suspect those who repress exposure of social pretense. The father of the Civil Rights Movement, Vernon Johns, reinforces my life experience with his academic work, which exposed the role of social pretense in perpetuating systematic hatred.
"... both southern and American societies have highly developed systems of social pretense that largely exclude rational consideration of the nation's racial problems. The refusal to discuss race and racism is itself a sign of racism. Not talking about racism continues the social pretense system and racism; but that is the intent, sad to say." (Vernon Johns, The Only Non-Racist History of the United States, Chapter 3)
Go ahead, call my reasonable contribution uncivil. I will call your behavior what it is.
I have no problem saying it Robert Hsiung -- you are a hate-monger in a lab coat. Your policies reveal a hatred of reason and a hatred of truth. You set up this web site where you teach others your emotional code of hatred. Just look at the behavior of your "deputies". After a few months under your tutelage, one very ethical professional considered it funny to joke about sexual assault of children, and to symbolically impose unwanted affection.
Do you think Southern racists dance around in white hoods chanting the "n" word all day? No. They are polite community leaders who take pride in their supposed "civility", all the while declaring it “uncivil” to discuss social pretense. You mask your hatred in genteel behavior even better than do most of my Southern neighbors. Your hatred is an offense against knowledge and against reason. Your enforcement of Rousseau's murderous social contract makes you and your fascist allies more dangerous than any very polite Klan member with whom I have ever shared a meal.
Now why don't you make your subservient mob cheer by symbolically lynching me for a week. I will spend the week celebrating the decline in traffic at this site. When I conceive a stronger way to rationally confront you for the mental disorders you are spreading, I will.
Don’t touch me.
http://www.hhs.gov/ocr/hipaa/
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2005, at 9:21:07
In reply to Your hateful opinion » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 12, 2005, at 21:11:08
> > > I often perceive human affection toward me as pretentious
> >
> > The problem there is "pretentious". When someone behaves pretentiously, how does that make you feel?
>
> Nobody makes me feel anything.Sorry, I meant "make" as in:
2 c : favor the growth or occurrence of
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?make> you responded hatefully
Please don't post anything that could lead others to feel accused. If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> I often feel alienated when I witness routine social pretense
OK, so an I-statement would be:
> I often feel alienated when I perceive human affection toward me
> In face-to-face relationships, people generally know by the way my eyes track and fail to dilate responsively not to approach me with ... behavior others might consider affectionate.
Online, it can help to convey explicitly (while of course remaining civil) what you might non-verbally in person.
Bob
Posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:03:25
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on April 13, 2005, at 9:21:07
To summarize what follows, I posit that you are overtly demanding I-statements, but covertly in some instances you only accept I-statements about certain subjects, specifically those about feelings and not about perceptions.
I think you are attempting something more like psychotherapy than administration, in that you are attempting to persuade me to articulate feelings. On the other hand, you might be trying to improve your administrative skills, which is why I am donating my time and effort.
Whichever the case, the feelings you would have me articulate are rhetorical artifacts of my interaction with you, and are neither spontaneous nor consistent with what I know to be true about myself. Since this is not a psychoanalytic forum, it seems unlikely the process is arranged so as to assess my feelings safely, accurately and therapeutically. Until you say otherwise, this forum appears to be about support and education related to feelings and to perceptions.
In the first model to which you referred ("I was offended when I saw..."), the model stated a perception -- a perceived offense -- with no reference to any feeling the hypothetically perceived offense evoked.
So to me, that suggests personal perceptions are acceptable by your guidelines. That would be a useful guideline, since many cognitively disordered people more likely need support and education for their effort to develop accurate perceptions than they need support and education about whatever emotions they feel in response to confused perceptions. I know for me, I long ago learned to cope with my feelings, dark and mortal as they may be, but I still struggle with confusion about what is life and why I am in it.
RH wrote:
> OK, so an I-statement would be:
>
> > I often feel alienated when I perceive human affection toward meIt would be a first-person declaration, a.k.a. an I-statement, but it wouldn't be my I-statement. I don't often feel alienated in response to affection. I often feel alienated when I witness pretense. Symbolic affection to me is all pretense, but the times I feel alienated in response to pretense are not necessarily the times I perceive affection as pretense. I more often feel alienated by pretense when there is a cost associated with not playing along, such as pretense expressed by fashion, by graphic renderings promoting predatory cultural practices and by symbols of social status. Unless it is deep, meaningful and not mediated by electronic network technology, I usually feel nothing when I witness human affection. As you recall, I previously explained why. I felt somewhat alienated when not playing along with (((huggies))) became costly, but I easily overcame the feeling by impugning the cost, and you are apparently unwilling as yet to exact the toll.
My I-statement would be:
"I often perceive that I am witnessing pretense when I witness symbolic affection among humans."
... and another would be:
"I often perceive I am witnessing profoundly developed pretense consistent with that described by prominent animal behaviorists when I perceive symbolic affection among humans."
Now, if "I-feel" is your final answer to "what is an I-statement" then my rendering of the model might become, "I feel I am witnessing pretense when..." But I probably wouldn’t write that, since I strive to write coherently and I am influenced by accepted science that indicates feelings and perceptions are different processes arising from activity in distinct and divergent neural networks.
> Online, it can help to convey explicitly (while of course remaining civil) what you might non-verbally in person.
>
> BobWhich is why I explicitly, and in keeping with all I have learned about civility, wrote in response to an overture of symbolic affection: "To you it may be real, but to me it is all pretense."
Let's break it down again.
"To me" = "I often perceive"
"To me it is" = "I often perceive I am witnessing"
"pretense" = "pretense"Well, maybe I need four years of medical school and another couple years in specialized training, because apparently I'm still not smart enough to find any difference between your models and what I wrote. That is, unless you are saying we are not to disclose our perceptions and the only civil topic of discussion at your party is discussion of feelings evoked by now-secret perceptions.
Posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 23:50:29
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:03:25
sigh, all those words...what an effort you donated...
Lemme splain. No wait, that would take too long. Lemme sum up.
From what I can see, it's the word "pretense" that represents the sticky wicket.
Some folks might perceive that the use of the word "pretense" about their behavior online could represent a negative judgement about said behavior.
Using emoticons or other graphical expressions of affection might also be perceived as an adaption to the limitations of this medium, and thus might represent a genuine behavior on a poster's part. To have this behavior referred to as being seen as a pretense by another poster might then be perceived by the poster using such adative aids as hurtful or upsetting.
So ends my 'splanation.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:19:51
In reply to Re: I-statements...my shot at this » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 23:50:29
You see it one way, I see it another.
Is that statement civil?
You see this as helpful, I see it as harmful.
Is that statement civil?
To you my complaint is empty, to me it is meaningful.
Is that statement civil?
You think emoticons enhance communication, I think they are an alternative to effective communication.
Is that statement civil?
Some believe in a divine spirit, others don't.
Is that statement civil?
Some scholars describe dramaturgy as genuine, other scholars describe it as pretense.
Is that statement civil?
Some scholars describe social performance as genuine, other scholars describe it as pretense.
Is that statement civil?
To you it is real, to me it is pretense.
Is that statement civil?
Posted by Tabitha on April 14, 2005, at 0:23:30
In reply to Re: I-statements...my shot at this » used2b, posted by gardenergirl on April 13, 2005, at 23:50:29
Or how about... "It's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."
Posted by gardenergirl on April 14, 2005, at 0:24:45
In reply to Re: I-statements... » gardenergirl, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:19:51
Sorry, no time to donate to help you with those.
gg
Posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:43:39
In reply to Re: I-statements...my shot at this, posted by Tabitha on April 14, 2005, at 0:23:30
> Or how about... "It's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."
That would be civil. Just as civil and even more specific could be ... "I understand you might be very sincere about this, but it's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."And even more detailed explanation could read... "I understand you, whose opinions, feelings and perspectives are just as valid as mine, might be very sincere about the use of emoticons on line, but it's very difficult if not impossible for me, whose opinion is different than yours and in no way any more valid, in fact it might be completely wrong, and my perspective might be clouded by childhood trauma, engrams, mind-altering medications, the toils of my day, and the sound of the television in the background, among other things, to believe or at least to accept as real and sincere that people such as yourself, who are probably very sincere and really are expressing true affection when you use emoticons or offer symbolic affection, are expressing true affection as I appreciate affection based entirely on my unique personal background, when they post hug symbols such as those you proposed but were so kind as to wait until I answered before you imposed on me affection that you were keen and kind enough to recognize, if only intuitively, that I might for some reason known only to me and not necessarily, in fact possibly not even likely to be coherent reasons, but instead based on the personal factors, real or hypothetical, that I have tried to explain in this one rather lengthy sentence, which by the way I appreciate you taking the time to read before you sent to me the hug you were so courteous to ask before sending without knowing if I wanted it."
But then, having considered the meaning contained in the above sentence, and having been trained that courteous writers use words economically when possible, I conveyed precisely the same meaning in a dozen simple words -- "To you it might be real, to me it is all pretense."
I don't mean this sarcastically at all. It's just that I've been offered several variations of the same sentence and they all convey the same meaning. You can add more words, you can use different words, but they say the same thing. I was scolded for being a skilled writer. And I was scolded for having an accurate academic recognition of how some scholars view the role of pretense in social behavior.
Posted by AuntieMel on April 14, 2005, at 9:40:05
In reply to Re: I-statements... » Tabitha, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:43:39
"To you it might be real, to me it is all pretense."
"It's difficult for me to believe that people are expressing true affection when they post hug symbols."
You are correct that they mean the same thing. And you are correct that economy of words usually is a better, more readable means to communicate.
Note: following is my opinion only. Accept it if you like it, chunk it if you don't.
But the second one makes it clearer that it is *your* perception that you are talking about and it makes it clearer that there is a possiblity that it wasn't what the poster was intending.
And it is much softer, which gives the other poster a chance to reply in an equally soft manner.
And I'm not a verbose person.
Posted by Tabitha on April 14, 2005, at 14:24:17
In reply to Re: I-statements... » Tabitha, posted by used2b on April 14, 2005, at 0:43:39
Well we'll have to disagree on this. I think the first version without the word 'pretense' is a much clearer communication and more likely to be understood. When you say 'it's all pretense' your listeners are more likely to hear an accusation (that they're being pretentious) and to react defensively and miss your meaning entirely.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 17:54:56
In reply to Re: I-statements » Dr. Bob, posted by used2b on April 13, 2005, at 22:03:25
> > I was offended when I saw the movie.
>
> the model stated a perception -- a perceived offenseThe model stated a movie, not a perceived offense.
> I often feel alienated when I witness pretense. Symbolic affection to me is all pretense, but the times I feel alienated in response to pretense are not necessarily the times I perceive affection as pretense. I more often feel alienated by pretense when there is a cost associated with not playing along, such as pretense expressed by fashion, by graphic renderings promoting predatory cultural practices and by symbols of social status. Unless it is deep, meaningful and not mediated by electronic network technology, I usually feel nothing when I witness human affection.
OK, other I-statements would be:
> I often feel alienated when I witness symbolic affection.
> I often feel alienated when there is a cost associated with not playing along.
> I usually feel nothing when I witness human affection.
But not:
> My I-statement would be:
>
> "I often perceive that I am witnessing pretense when I witness symbolic affection among humans."Or if you want to consider that an I-statement about perceptions, then, like:
> I perceive that Dr. Bob has gone overboard.
it would be an I-statement that isn’t civil. Using I-statements tends to be civil:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
but isn’t necessarily.
> > Online, it can help to convey explicitly (while of course remaining civil) what you might non-verbally in person.
>
> Which is why I explicitly, and in keeping with all I have learned about civility, wrote in response to an overture of symbolic affection: "To you it may be real, but to me it is all pretense."But that wouldn’t be remaining civil. How about:
> Please don’t approach me with symbolic affection.
Bob
Posted by RH_is_a_predator on April 14, 2005, at 21:51:46
In reply to Re: I-statements, posted by Dr. Bob on April 14, 2005, at 17:54:56
> > > I was offended when I saw the movie.
> >
> Former doctor Robert Hsuing wrote:
>"The model stated a movie, not a perceived offense."
Right. And frogs are trucks that dance noodles blue sandy wind."I was offended"
The model stated a perception of an offense. A medical license is not a license to turn language into gibberish.
Posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2005, at 11:09:28
In reply to Your gibberish » Dr. Bob, posted by RH_is_a_predator on April 14, 2005, at 21:51:46
> Right. And frogs are trucks that dance noodles blue sandy wind.
When you’re blocked, you’re not supposed to post, so I’m going to double its duration, block this name, and delete these additional posts.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2005, at 11:23:55
In reply to Re: blocked » RH_is_a_predator, posted by Dr. Bob on April 15, 2005, at 11:09:28
I'm not through reading them
Posted by partlycloudy on April 15, 2005, at 15:21:02
In reply to Re: please don't delete them yet » Dr. Bob, posted by AuntieMel on April 15, 2005, at 11:23:55
Just let us know when you're done, OK? I'd like to see these posts gone from here, even if we had some laughs.
pc
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.