![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 25 to 49 of 49. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:51
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by Jakeman on June 22, 2006, at 21:11:18
> I think Larry Hoover is Babble Royalty (no sarcasm intended) and should *never* be blocked.
I think Larry would get lots of votes, but I'm the only one who can't be blocked.
> if there's true harassment ... administration should step in and take action. Leaving this to the posters encourages DNP *warfare* - dueling DNP's.
>
> verneIf each side issued a DNP, wouldn't that end any warfare?
--
> > PS: I'm trying out a new system:
> >
> > previous block: x weeks
> > period of time since previous block: x weeks
> > uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes/no
> > particularly uncivil: yes/no
> > different type of incivility: /yesno
> > clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: yes/no
> > provoked: yes/no
> > uncivil in multiple posts at same time: yes/no
> > already archived: yes/no
>
> How does this formula work?
>
> It seems that you take the previous block and subtract the weeks since that block; then you apparently take that and multiply by 2 (or so, depending on whether you end up with a 0, in which case you add a number-- how is that number calculated?)"New" means not completely worked out yet. But the general idea is:
new block = (old block - time off for civil behavior) * multiplier
time off = weeks since previous block / 10
multiplier
= 1 if provoked
= 3 if toward a particular individual or group, particularly uncivil, or in multiple posts
= 2 otherwiseAnd first blocks (or blocks when the number to be multiplied is < or = 0) are 1 week.
> I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
I agree.
> I honestly don't know how these exchanges were evoked, but couldn't the people involved be put on moderation or something?
That's been discussed, see:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596986.html
> Or maybe some other intervention?
>
> JostI'm open to suggestions...
--
> > Or maybe it's saying, "There's lots you can vent about, but not necessarily about everything you may wish to."
>
> I'm a big advocate of clear communication. I think the good Doc should provide clarification- revisions.
>
> JakeThese deputies, they translate very well. :-) Is her restatement clear enough?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:57
In reply to Re: what??? 10 wks » wildcardII, posted by Phillipa on June 21, 2006, at 15:49:51
> Why are people trying to ruin to love of Lar and Amy.
Please don't jump to conclusions about others or post anything that could lead them to feel accused.
But please don't take this personally, either, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person.
If you or others have questions about this or about posting policies in general, or are interested in alternative ways of expressing yourself, please first see the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Toph on June 23, 2006, at 7:40:25
In reply to Re: About venting, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:51
>
> ...I'm the only one who can't be blocked.
>Oh, I can block you Bob.
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 8:17:33
In reply to Re: About venting, posted by Dr. Bob on June 23, 2006, at 4:31:51
I believe as you consider Larry to have been provoked the correct multiplier would be one and the block would be 5 weeks. Please recalculate. Naturally I oppose all blocks and think it would be more compassionate to simply delete several posts on the relationship board. Thanks
>
> previous block: 6 weeks
period of time since previous block: 13 weeks
uncivil toward a particular individual or group: yes
particularly uncivil: no
different type of incivility: no
clearly didn't understand PBC and made effort to reply: no
provoked: yes
uncivil in multiple posts at same time: no
already archived: noIf we take 13 weeks, divide by 10, and round down, that's a reduction of 1 week. If we apply that to your previous block, that's 6 - 1 = 5 weeks. And if we double that, that's 10 weeks.
>
> new block = (old block - time off for civil behavior) * multiplier
>
> time off = weeks since previous block / 10
>
> multiplier
> = 1 if provoked
> = 3 if toward a particular individual or group, particularly uncivil, or in multiple posts
> = 2 otherwise
>
> And first blocks (or blocks when the number to be multiplied is < or = 0) are 1 week.
>
> > I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
>
> I agree.
>
> > I honestly don't know how these exchanges were evoked, but couldn't the people involved be put on moderation or something?
>
> That's been discussed, see:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20051205/msgs/596986.html
>
> > Or maybe some other intervention?
> >
> > Jost
>
> I'm open to suggestions...
>
> --
>
> > > Or maybe it's saying, "There's lots you can vent about, but not necessarily about everything you may wish to."
> >
> > I'm a big advocate of clear communication. I think the good Doc should provide clarification- revisions.
> >
> > Jake
>
> These deputies, they translate very well. :-) Is her restatement clear enough?
>
> Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 9:07:37
In reply to Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » Dr. Bob, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 8:17:33
> I believe as you consider Larry to have been provoked the correct multiplier would be one and the block would be 5 weeks. Please recalculate.
Well, I don't know how Dr. Bob defines "uncivil in multiple posts at same time", but considering there were two PBC's and a Please Rephrase within a very short period of time, I expected that this criterion would be a "yes". If that's correct, then that would require recalculating, too. But as I said, I could be interpreting that differently than Dr. Bob.
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 10:26:30
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » zazenduck, posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 9:07:37
> > I believe as you consider Larry to have been provoked the correct multiplier would be one and the block would be 5 weeks. Please recalculate.
>
> Well, I don't know how Dr. Bob defines "uncivil in multiple posts at same time", but considering there were two PBC's and a Please Rephrase within a very short period of time, I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post. I think same means since the last warning not within a short period of time.
Of course he can do anything he wants to.
I believe the most compassionate thing would be to delete posts which reveal personal information about other posters without that poster's consent.....this would of course include your "mistake" on the thread above about Estella's block. I was dismayed by your choices and the consequences of those choices for others who are not allowed to post at this time.
Was there a reason you didn't sanction yourself for revealing that ? You know I am opposed to blocks and wouldn't support that. If Dr Bob blocks you I shall protest. I was wondering about your reasoning if you would care to share.
I don't think there was any intent to harm in your post. But I think it is invalidating to judge others' intent and apply sanctions based on intent. I also think it is impossible unless you are a mind reader.
This doesn't mean that I think you are a bad person or that I do not like you.
>
>
Posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 14:24:22
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » gardenergirl, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 10:26:30
>> ...I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".
>
> Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post.Ummm....yeaaah, (she says in her best Lumbergh-esque voice). He did mark that one no. That's a rather important element to the development of my comment.
>I was dismayed by your choices and the consequences of those choices for others who are not allowed to post at this time.
As was I when said poster brought it to my attention.
> Was there a reason you didn't sanction yourself for revealing that ?
Given that there are competent others who could sanction me if appropriate, I see no need to take on a dual role regarding my post.
> This doesn't mean that I think you are a bad person or that I do not like you.
Well, I'd make a kissy face, but I don't know you well enough. ;) So I'll just say ditto.
gg
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 16:15:45
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » zazenduck, posted by gardenergirl on June 23, 2006, at 14:24:22
> >> ...I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".
> >
> > Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post.
>
> Ummm....yeaaah, (she says in her best Lumbergh-esque voice). He did mark that one no. That's a rather important element to the development of my comment.
>
Sorry I'm lost. Which comment are you talking about?Were you all ready aware of Bob's post that said no to the multiple uncivil posts when you wrote the first post?
And how was it a rather important element ?
I can't understand what you mean. Sorry I don't know who Lumbherg is and I am unable to decipher your tone or message. Could you try again please?Thanks
Posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 19:56:23
In reply to Re: Sorry I don't understand, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 16:15:45
But he did say yes to particular individual for 3. I missed that.
So I believe he must have subtracted 1 from 3 to get 2.I didn't realize you were saying you thought Bob had made a MISTAKE about the multiple posts. I thought you meant you had expected it but Bob didn't do it. Good Questioning of Authority there GG!!!!!!!!!!
I hope you weren't making fun of me. That would make me feel sad. Thanks for not making kissy faces at me. That's frowned on in my culture. I appreciate your sensitivity.
YOU CAN BLOCK ME ANYTIME YOU WANT TO
No reason needed. No hard feelings :)Your friend
Zazenduck
> > >> ...I expected that this criterion would be a "yes".
> > >
> > > Actually Bob said no to that criterion if you recheck the original post.
> >
> > Ummm....yeaaah, (she says in her best Lumbergh-esque voice). He did mark that one no. That's a rather important element to the development of my comment.
> >
>
> Sorry I'm lost. Which comment are you talking about?
>
> Were you all ready aware of Bob's post that said no to the multiple uncivil posts when you wrote the first post?
>
> And how was it a rather important element ?
>
>
> I can't understand what you mean. Sorry I don't know who Lumbherg is and I am unable to decipher your tone or message. Could you try again please?
>
> Thanks
Posted by gardenergirl on June 24, 2006, at 3:29:00
In reply to look at me !look at me! I figured it out!, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 19:56:23
Lumbergh is the character played by Gary Cole. He had a rather distinctive way of speaking.
Great movie.
gg
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 25, 2006, at 11:30:44
In reply to Re: Dr Bob I believe you made a mistake » gardenergirl, posted by zazenduck on June 23, 2006, at 10:26:30
> I believe the most compassionate thing would be to delete posts which reveal personal information about other posters without that poster's consent.....
>
> zazenduckOrdinarily, I would, but in this case I can't think of any other way to explain that block...
Bob
Posted by alesta on June 26, 2006, at 11:20:57
In reply to Re: what??? 10 wks, posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 23:11:07
> PS I'm very very saddened by the unfolding of events in this last few days and weeks, as I read them. I don't know the people involved, but it is so very very sad.
hi jost,:)
i'm on one of my rare admin excursions here.:)..you're very sweet to post that (above)...you replied to me in such a kind manner on relationships as well, which really meant a great deal to me...i don't always feel supported here..maybe not getting many replies b/c i don't come here often or know many of the ppl here now. anyway, i didn't reply in much detail there only because i didn't want to reopen a wound that had just begun to heal. i hope it didn't come across as unappreciative or anything like that. again, just wanted to thank you much for your kindness.:-)take care,:)
amy
Posted by laima on July 23, 2006, at 22:29:43
In reply to About venting » Phillipa, posted by gardenergirl on June 21, 2006, at 20:00:20
Dear GardenGirl,
I'm pretty bent out of shape over some recent misunderstandings and/or legit episodes I recently experienced this weekend. One was was wonderfully resolved, and it was a valuable experience. Another, the other person was warned, but I remain bewildered and fear I had something to do with aggrevating him. I am clueless over that one...And now, with another, fragile and touchy, I'm losing it and might have blown it, period. Very embarressed. Is there another place "safe" or "ok", more apppropriate for touchier discussions and dicer topics that are more abstract? Or should I just back off? That's what I guess to be the answer. It is true, I recently found this site and jumped right in with so much enthusiasm before I even got to the rules, so I acknowledge I am part guilty. I'm gonna back off for now, and feel really, really horrible over any mess I got in to or exasperated. Am I the only loser to goof like this? Are there any successful-recovery-from-stupid-posts cases? Somehow, face to face communication has always been easier for me. I really like this site. I've learned a lot here during the brief time I explored it.
Thank you,
and respectfully,Laima.
ps->but this isn't necessarily the place.
Do you know another place for those sorts of things?
> > Isn't it true that people are allowed to vent here?
>
> Not necessarily. From the FAQ: "Different points of view are fine, and in fact encouraged, but your freedom of speech is limited here. It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place."
>
> > He didn't hurt anyone.
>
> That doesn't mean that civility rules don't apply, and there is evidence to the contrary anyway.
>
> gg
Posted by james K on July 24, 2006, at 2:47:36
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 23, 2006, at 22:29:43
Hi, I made some very uncomfortable posts in past. I have to live with them and the fall out. I think that is one result of the no erase policy and the civility guidelines combo. Just like real life, you pick up and carry on. I don't know your "goof" if it was one. Please don't research mine. I just want to say that my answer to your questions is - maybe I've partially recovered in other's eyes, and I've partially recovered in my eyes, but I think the exercise is worth the effort.
hang in there,
james k
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2006, at 8:18:36
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 23, 2006, at 22:29:43
The rules are that you can't say anything negative about another poster or someone's posts. You are allowed to state your reactions to a post, but can't include a negative statement about the other poster in those reactions.
You might want to study the FAQ for examples.
For those things where Babble is not the place, it means this entire site is not the place - including Babblemail. None of the boards. The correct place may be among off board friends or your therapist or an internet site unrelated to Babble.
Here's a link to the civility guidelines.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
Until you feel comfortable with what is and isn't allowed, you might wish to be careful about posting when you're upset. Or you might contact Dr. Bob or the deputies and ask them to preview what you wish to write, to make sure it won't be in violation of the civility guidelines.
Posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 9:59:27
In reply to Re: About venting » laima, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2006, at 8:18:36
Thank you for helping me understand the rules better Dinah, and I would have to agree- posting while upset is proving to be a really foolish idea- at least in my case. Posting late at night while under influence of ambien has been especially disasterous. I'm still going to try to "cool it" for awhile, and I'm embarressed.
I've reviewed the rules, but evidently not carefully enough, because I thought I already knew what "civil" is. I guess on a blog like this one, "civil" needs to be particularly specific. That makes sense.
I think I'll do better once I cool off. The events of the weekend really rattled me out of common sense by Sunday night. One case Saturday involved another poster who I perceived as attacking me, but I couldn't follow his sentences well and have no good idea of what he was even saying. I felt helpless in my efforts to diffuse whatever was happening. I think he received a warning, but I still felt that I was also resonsable. The other case involved myself getting a warning after angrily responding, without calmly thinking, to a post which seemed to be a trick. I told him I thought the post was "mean", thinking that wasn't so bad of a word--but I guess it violated the guidelines. Then the poster's brother threw a slew of false, extreme accusations at me, but that elicited no response or warnings. Regardless, I understand now why I received my own warning, and I am extremely happy and encouraged that the person I argued with and I later seem to have reached a genuine mutual understanding and respect of where we were both coming from, and why we each said what we did. As of yesterday, I think the particular issue is cooled off and resolved, thank goodness. Sincerely, I can't speak for anyone else, but the experience ended up to be very educational in numerous ways, and being able to resolve the conflict with the other poster was very rewarding, and renewed my faith and confidence about being able to work conflicts out with people. (This definately does not mean I'm looking for more, though!)
Before the resolution, I was pretty hurt that during most of that episode, however, because through much of it I perceived that everyone's hurt feelings were being addressed save my own.
Maybe I'm about to find the answer to this question clearly stated in a moment when I go to the rule section- but do I understand, then, that if something offensive or attack-like turns up it is better to not respond, but rather contact a deputy?
I wish I was having better luck finding a therapist for many reasons, including for the more controversial/potentially problematic discussions. But so far everyone I've been directed to reported "no new clients at this time", and I dived in at the board a bit heavy as soon as I discovered it precisely because I lack "real-life" friends who understand what it is like to struggle with a long-term mood disorder. I'm not saying"no friends"- but any attempt at discussion about my long-term mood disorder inevitabley goes along the lines of "get a grip, there's nothing wrong with you, those meds are likely what's messing you up". And some people just are sick of my mood disorder, period-as if it was false.
Again, I am going to very carefully go through all of the suggestions which you've listed here, re-study the civility rules with actual seriousness (as oposed to casually) and in particular, heed your suggestion of not posting anything at all while upset.
I also plan to back off heavily.Thank you for your response and for all of your tips and suggestions. I really appreciate your listening and your help.
Very sincerely and humbely,
Laima.
> The rules are that you can't say anything negative about another poster or someone's posts. You are allowed to state your reactions to a post, but can't include a negative statement about the other poster in those reactions.
>
> You might want to study the FAQ for examples.
>
> For those things where Babble is not the place, it means this entire site is not the place - including Babblemail. None of the boards. The correct place may be among off board friends or your therapist or an internet site unrelated to Babble.
>
> Here's a link to the civility guidelines.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> Until you feel comfortable with what is and isn't allowed, you might wish to be careful about posting when you're upset. Or you might contact Dr. Bob or the deputies and ask them to preview what you wish to write, to make sure it won't be in violation of the civility guidelines.
Posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 10:01:50
In reply to Re: About venting » laima, posted by james K on July 24, 2006, at 2:47:36
Thank you, James. And I promise not to look for your "goof' or for anyone else's!
> Hi, I made some very uncomfortable posts in past. I have to live with them and the fall out. I think that is one result of the no erase policy and the civility guidelines combo. Just like real life, you pick up and carry on. I don't know your "goof" if it was one. Please don't research mine. I just want to say that my answer to your questions is - maybe I've partially recovered in other's eyes, and I've partially recovered in my eyes, but I think the exercise is worth the effort.
>
> hang in there,
> james k
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2006, at 10:27:12
In reply to Re: About venting » Dinah, posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 9:59:27
> Thank you for helping me understand the rules better Dinah, and I would have to agree- posting while upset is proving to be a really foolish idea- at least in my case. Posting late at night while under influence of ambien has been especially disasterous. I'm still going to try to "cool it" for awhile, and I'm embarressed.
There's no reason to be embarassed, but if you need help understanding the rules as they apply to any particular case, it might be better to contact a deputy or Dr. Bob.
> I've reviewed the rules, but evidently not carefully enough, because I thought I already knew what "civil" is. I guess on a blog like this one, "civil" needs to be particularly specific. That makes sense.
>
> Then the poster's brother threw a slew of false, extreme accusations at me, but that elicited no response or warnings.Now, you see, that is a statement that isn't allowed under the civility guidelines. You can't characterize another person's post in such a way that may lead them to feel accused or put down.
> Regardless, I understand now why I received my own warning, and I am extremely happy and encouraged that the person I argued with and I later seem to have reached a genuine mutual understanding and respect of where we were both coming from, and why we each said what we did. As of yesterday, I think the particular issue is cooled off and resolved, thank goodness. Sincerely, I can't speak for anyone else, but the experience ended up to be very educational in numerous ways, and being able to resolve the conflict with the other poster was very rewarding, and renewed my faith and confidence about being able to work conflicts out with people. (This definately does not mean I'm looking for more, though!)
I'm not familiar with the incident, but if it appeared resolved, with apologies on all sides, there probably wouldn't be any administrative involvement.
> Maybe I'm about to find the answer to this question clearly stated in a moment when I go to the rule section- but do I understand, then, that if something offensive or attack-like turns up it is better to not respond, but rather contact a deputy?
That's probably best, especially if you aren't clear on the rules. Another option is to post on Admin a simple link to the URL with a neutral request for review. It isn't necessary to state on board why you think that the post needs reviewing, since that could lead you into tricky civility waters.
I hope you're able to find what you wish to find in Babble.
Posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 10:40:13
In reply to Re: About venting » laima, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2006, at 10:27:12
Is it my language? Words too strong as opposed to descriptive?I felt EXTREMELY accused and put down by the post I just mentioned, the severe things said about me in it, and there was nothing subtle about any of it.
I'm not naming any names, and seems that the incident has been resolved already anyway.
.>Then the poster's brother threw a slew of false, extreme accusations at me, but that elicited no response or warnings.>Now, you see, that is a statement that isn't allowed under the civility guidelines. You can't characterize another person's post in such a way that may lead them to feel accused or put down.
Posted by AuntieMel on July 24, 2006, at 11:24:20
In reply to Re: About venting » gardenergirl, posted by laima on July 23, 2006, at 22:29:43
Just so you know...
You *by far* are not the first to "goof" as you call it. And I'm sure you won't be the last.
AuntieMel, prone to foot-in-mouth disease...
Posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 11:28:52
In reply to Re: About venting » laima, posted by AuntieMel on July 24, 2006, at 11:24:20
Thank you, Auntie Mel. I apparently suffer from "foot-in-mouth", too :)> Just so you know...
>
> You *by far* are not the first to "goof" as you call it. And I'm sure you won't be the last.
>
>
> AuntieMel, prone to foot-in-mouth disease...
Posted by Dinah on July 24, 2006, at 12:15:13
In reply to Re: About venting, posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 10:40:13
No, that's not it. Descriptive isn't allowed either if you are describing another poster's posts in negative terms.
So you can say you felt offended, or shocked or hurt. But you can't say that anyone's post was offensive or hurtful. One describes your reactions. The other describes the other person's behavior. If you stay away from characterizing another person's behavior in a negative way, you'll be ok.
If in doubt, contact a deputy before posting.
Because even these on board discussions can lead you into trouble if you try to describe what you mean, and include negative descriptions of another poster's posts or character or behavior.
Posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 15:28:55
In reply to Re: About venting » laima, posted by Dinah on July 24, 2006, at 12:15:13
Makes sense.> No, that's not it. Descriptive isn't allowed either if you are describing another poster's posts in negative terms.
>
> So you can say you felt offended, or shocked or hurt. But you can't say that anyone's post was offensive or hurtful. One describes your reactions. The other describes the other person's behavior. If you stay away from characterizing another person's behavior in a negative way, you'll be ok.
>
> If in doubt, contact a deputy before posting.
>
> Because even these on board discussions can lead you into trouble if you try to describe what you mean, and include negative descriptions of another poster's posts or character or behavior.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 4:45:52
In reply to Re: About venting » Dinah, posted by laima on July 24, 2006, at 9:59:27
> maybe I've partially recovered in other's eyes, and I've partially recovered in my eyes, but I think the exercise is worth the effort.
>
> james k> Sincerely, I can't speak for anyone else, but the experience ended up to be very educational in numerous ways, and being able to resolve the conflict with the other poster was very rewarding, and renewed my faith and confidence about being able to work conflicts out with people.
>
> Laima.Thanks for mentioning some of the potential upsides of discomfort and conflict. :-)
Bob
Posted by laima on July 25, 2006, at 11:05:39
In reply to Re: upsides, posted by Dr. Bob on July 25, 2006, at 4:45:52
Thank you Dr. Bob, deputies, and everyone else here for sharing your comments.
I've got the civility rules page bookmarked now for easy access and frequent review.
I personally particularly appreciate that the civility rules page explains why "civility", as it is defined in the dictionary, isn't necessarily the same as how we need to understand and apply it in an online forum such as psychobabble. That part...regretabley was not something I had really paid sufficient attention to, comprehended, or even considered so much at first, until my blunders forced me to seriously re-evaluate how I express and conduct myself here.
Thank you all for your rather extremely generous patience as I've been learning the rules, some still a little bit confusing, in a painfully stumbely way. I appreciate this very much, and promise to keep studying that page.
This is the end of the 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.