![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 25 of 41. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 14:51:55
OK, I admit: I have this thing about Dr Swift...
Here's a more serious suggestion that might help minimize strife on these boards, and maybe help avoid some of the sort of hurt feelings that have been reported after someone's posts were brought here for a determination of civility.
And let me say that again: I am posting this suggestion because people have posted here that their feelings were hurt by having their posts brought up for determination. Maybe this would help avoid some of those hurt feelings.
Instead of posting a link here, asking that a post be reviewed for civility, how about a function to allow posts to be sent via email to the Deputy On Call, or the Civility Monitor? A new form that allows the post in question to be sent, along with a very brief message regarding why someone thinks the post may violate the rules? The form could have a set of checkboxes, so that such things as "Direct Insult Towards Another Poster", or "Unacceptable Language", or "Violating Medication Related Rules", or whatever, could be as simple as ticking a box; but still have a space that could be used for a brief explanation of anything that fell into a grey area.
The Civility Monitor could be a rotating responsibility of the Deputies and Dr Bob, so that no one person would become overwhelmed, and anything that a deputy was unsure of could be relayed to Dr Bob as the final arbiter. Someone, though, would be responsible for all the issues reported during discrete time periods, so that every complaint would be addressed.
One benefit of handling this sort of thing privately is that those who are not comfortable asserting themselves publicly may feel safer doing so privately. This would be a benefit for the board as a whole, since it would help every member of our community know that their voice would be heard.
Another benefit, which I think might be more important, is that there might be fewer hurt feelings. In most cases, I would bet that civility issues could be handled more privately -- maybe by allowing people a certain amount of time in which to edit their questionable posts? Maybe simply by letting someone know that, while their post was within the guidelines, it was a close call and maybe they might think a bit more next time before hitting the "submit" button.
The Civility Monitor could be a title used instead of a posting name, so that none of the deputies would feel constrained about responding to a "friend's" post. For example, if I were the CM, and was sent a post by, say, NikkiT (whom I like and have never seen as uncivil -- this is an example using someone I consider a friend), and actually found that it was uncivil, I would not feel as though our friendship would be affected by my bringing it to her attention in my role as CM.
That's as much as I've got time to write about this. I think this is a purty good idear, and would like to run it up the flagpole, see if anyone else agrees?
Posted by NikkiT2 on June 11, 2005, at 14:57:41
In reply to Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 14:51:55
I love the entire idea. I'm not against people asking for civility rulings, but I do not like it being done it public.
So.. Hear Hear to your idea
Nikki
Posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 15:17:37
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time » Racer, posted by NikkiT2 on June 11, 2005, at 14:57:41
that you were offended that I used your name as an example!
You are the Bestest in the Westest, my dear. Now I'll go shimmy about how glad I am that you like my idea.
Posted by jay on June 11, 2005, at 15:19:15
In reply to Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 14:51:55
What seems to be transpiring here is some kind of 'Big Brother' system, which to me is very scary. I am trying to word this as civil as possible...as I feel we (me included)shouldn't be acting like victims (that is addressed to no one in particular) and deal with things as they are. Honestly, if something is so deeply offensive to one or more of us, but Dr. Bob doesn't feel that way, why bother reading the posts? Nobody is 'forcing' us to. It is Bob's board; we just gotta move on.
From this corner anyway's..
Jay
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:24:26
In reply to Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 14:51:55
If anonymity can improve the proposed reporting protocol, why not arrange a method where the reporting party also can remain anonymous? That could serve to prevent monitors from knowing if they are responding to the reports of a friend or to reports of someone who they might not consider a "Very Important Poster".
And for that matter, aggregated data about the sort of requests submitted anonymously could be reported back to the group -- such as the total number of requests for review, and under which category they were submitted. That could allow members an opportunity to contemplate what sorts of posts might be the most troublesome and possibly even avoid writing posts that might encroach on those troublesome areads.
But all the same, to not allow members to post even general requests for clarification seems contrary to civic understanding intended in the administrator's policy of publicly sanctioning members so others will understand the reason for the sanction. For example, I would tend to support a private reporting method about particular posts if I were allowed to post on the administrative board general questions about when posters are allowed to call a government policy "hypocritical" and "pathetic". If admin replied "never" I would support a policy that first encourages private attempts to resolve matters that appear to conflict with the stated policy, but which then allow posts questioning the consistency of administration (and not the propriety of a particular post, but perhaps citing the content of particular posts as examples) to be published at this admin board.
However, if the administration is torn between a policy of favoring those he has called in professional publications "very important posters" and establishing policies that are fair and consistent no matter the status of a group member, there may be no technical means of resolving conflict between fair administation and what is a purely personal and subjective value judgement.
Posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:47:46
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:24:26
And what makes someone a "very important poster"? Why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else? Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 19:36:08
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 18:24:26
As I'm sure you remember, Dr. Bob has a pretty good record of allowing "Very Important Posters" leave in anger. It has been my historical impression that Dr. Bob doesn't seem to treat anyone as a Very Important Poster. Whatever he might write.
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:07:23
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time » so, posted by Phillipa on June 11, 2005, at 18:47:46
> And what makes someone a "very important poster"?
I'm sure many of the people who have read the professional publication someone kindly sent to me wondered the same thing. Only answer I could offer is "In a professional publication, Robert Hsiung labeled some people as V.I.P.'s"
> Why should anyone be treated differently than anyone else?I don't know that they should. Probably the underlying question is whether some are treated differently.
I wonder why he would call some people "V.I.P's" if there is no difference in the way he views their importance. He recently made a similar inference about the relative imporatance of frequent posters, but as I recall, his inference only suggested there might be differences in importance, but didn't say what those differences might be.
Posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:08:36
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:07:23
So...
:-(
I'm sorry you feel undervalued.
Posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 20:39:19
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time » so, posted by alexandra_k on June 11, 2005, at 20:08:36
> So...
>
> :-(
> I'm sorry you feel undervalued.
A_K,
In your post above, could you state what in "so"'s post gave a foundation for you to write what you wrote? I do not see where "so" wrote that he/she felt {undervalued} and what you are using to write,["I'm sorry"].
Lou
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:54:45
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time » so, posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 19:36:08
> As I'm sure you remember, Dr. Bob has a pretty good record of allowing "Very Important Posters" leave in anger. It has been my historical impression that Dr. Bob doesn't seem to treat anyone as a Very Important Poster. Whatever he might write.
Though he at times might do things that are not appreciated by some he has classified publicly as "Very Important Posters" that doesn't mean he treats everyone the same. Similarly, some people believe wealthy individuals have more access to the justice system than do those of little means. But that doesn't mean wealthy people don't sometimes suffer unfair treatment regardless their advantage going into the system, and the fact that some wealthy individuals might be treated unfairly doesn't mean they don't (or do) enjoy some advantage because of their wealth.Evidence that some V.I.P.s leave in anger doesn't fully address the potential favor afforded to those classified as V.I.P.s
Posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 21:09:52
In reply to Lou's response to alexandra_k's post-undrval » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on June 11, 2005, at 20:39:19
> what in "so"'s post gave a foundation for you to write what you wrote? I do not see where "so" wrote that he/she felt {undervalued} and what you are using to write,["I'm sorry"].
> Lou
Lou,I wondered the same thing, though I avoided asking AK to account for the statement that she was sorry about what she perceived as my feelings.
In reviewing my post, I note that I wrote, in reference to my perceptions, "I'm sure," "I could offer," "I don't know," "I wonder why" and "I recall" but nothing about what I feel.
Posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 22:11:03
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by so on June 11, 2005, at 20:54:45
That's not my recollection *at all*.
My recollection is that Dr. Bob was very careful to treat those who might be considered very important posters exactly the way he treated anyone else.
Others of course might disagree, and probably will - because that's the way of the world.
Posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 14:01:58
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, more serious this time » so, posted by Dinah on June 11, 2005, at 22:11:03
actually comment on the suggestion I made?
I do think that so's idea of some sort of public statistical analysis of the sorts of reports made would be a good idea. I don't like the idea of anonymous complaints, though, because I think it has the potential to lead to people unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.
As for VIPs, I think that *we* select the VIPs. I don't think that it's something Dr Bob applies to us, but something that we-the-posters create through our own group dynamics. I don't think there's anything at all wrong with it.
And I am not going to say anything more right now, because I am experiencing strong opinions about the usefulness of some of the discussions I'm seeing on this board, and don't want to get blocked by expressing them.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 15:13:25
In reply to Sorry to interupt -- any chance we could..., posted by Racer on June 12, 2005, at 14:01:58
> actually comment on the suggestion I made?
I'm game! I think your suggestion should be considered (along with the 3-complaint rule and other suggestions that have been made http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511053.html ). I would think it should apply to people who want to challenge a post that 1) was not directed at them, 2) was not about them, and 3) was in a thread (or part of a thread) that they were not actively participating in. I think if conditions 1, 2, or 3 are true (was directed at them, was about them, or was in a thread/part of a thread that they were active in), the challenger should be able to make a public challenge, or to use your plan, if they wished.
> The Civility Monitor could be a rotating responsibility of the Deputies and Dr Bob…
I need to think more about how the civility monitor would work, but I’m generally OK with it.
> I do think that so's idea of some sort of public statistical analysis of the sorts of reports made would be a good idea… I don't like the idea of anonymous complaints, though, because I think it has the potential to lead to people unwilling to take responsibility for their own actions.
Agree.
I guess what I’m saying is, I’m open to suggestions… there have been plenty of good ones (including yours) that may only need a little logical thought and tweaking to work. Try ‘em… if they don’t work, try something else.
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:08:19
In reply to Re: Sorry to interupt -- any chance we could... » Racer, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 15:13:25
I want to emphasise that I object in the strongest way to the so-called three complaint rule being used to restrict general querries about particular phrases.
For example, if a person writes "UserName X was mean to me here" and another posts to the admin board "can a person write on Psycho-Babble that a particular member 'was mean to me'", thereby making the querry without citing a particular post where the statement was made, that is not a complaint -- that is a request for information. Otherwise, the so-called "three-complaint rule" would exclude anyone from the administration board who posts twice but does not win the approval of the administrator.
And if a person finds cases where similar statements are treated differently and cares to inquire about why such statements were treated in the way they were, instead of complaining specifically that they feel hurt or put down, again that is a question about administration and it is part of the accepted ethical obligations among professionals studying this new venue for medical support and information that such questions, when submitted, be made available for review by professional peers. Any effort to hide from any reviewer the scope or nature of questions about administration of a group such as this raises questions about whether a particular forum intends to follow particular ethical guidelines.
All the while, if this is a forum where it is acceptable to call the policies of the majority of the people of the nation where the forum is hosted "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke" it will likely always be difficult even for some long time members to understand why it is okay to call most people's opinion "pathetic" etc. but it is not okay of some people to write the same thing about other matters.
If in fact the administration is enforcing his opinion about the value of posters rather than standard terms of service, any effort to restrict feedback is likely to serve the purpose of discriminating against individuals in favor of preferred individuals and not further even-handed enforcement of standardized, consistent terms of service.
Generally, the three-complaint rule seems contradictory of the published purpose behind publicly admonishing those who post things the administrator does not want to see posted. The stated reason for that policy is that he believes it leads people to a better understanding of what is acceptable. If people are prohibited from inquiring about what is acceptable and why, such prohibition would seem contrary to the purpose of public admonishment and he would do as well to delete posts he finds unacceptable with no public comment.
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:40:52
In reply to Re: any chance we could..., posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:08:19
After thinking further about interactions I have observed here, I will suggest that, if the administrator intends to make his third denial of a poster's complaint that they or someone else might feel put down the standard by which he excludes further complaints, when he does not sustain a complaint about a particular post, he would do well to explain his reasons.
Not responding to complaints, responding with a question that does not offer a finding or responding with a sparse "I think it's acceptable" doesn't seem conducive to the purpose of publicly sanctioning people so the community will better understand reasons behind what is allowed and what is not.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
In reply to Re: any chance we could..., posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 16:08:19
> I want to emphasise that I object in the strongest way to the so-called three complaint rule being used to restrict general querries about particular phrases.
>
> For example, if a person writes "UserName X was mean to me here" and another posts to the admin board "can a person write on Psycho-Babble that a particular member 'was mean to me'", thereby making the querry without citing a particular post where the statement was made, that is not a complaint -- that is a request for information.I don’t know about anyone else, but the queries I've been talking about are the ones that include identifiable quotes from and/or links to the poster and posts being challenged, thereby drawing attention not only to whether or not what was said is "OK", but also asking (even if indirectly) if said poster is civil. I don't think I'd object to someone asking "Is it within the guidelines of this forum to use the phrase ‘beating it [a subject] to death’?" But I do object to queries that point very specifically to what I or someone else has said. I object to it especially if the person asking 1) Has not asked the poster what he/she meant, or 2) Is not the subject of the post or thread, or 3) Is not actively participating in the thread, or at least the part of the thread being challenged. (Some threads here go on for years, with different posters entering and leaving along the way.)
> Otherwise, the so-called "three-complaint rule" would exclude anyone from the administration board who posts twice but does not win the approval of the administrator.
>
> And if a person finds cases where similar statements are treated differently and cares to inquire about why such statements were treated in the way they were, instead of complaining specifically that they feel hurt or put down, again that is a question about administration and it is part of the accepted ethical obligations among professionals studying this new venue for medical support and information that such questions, when submitted, be made available for review by professional peers. Any effort to hide from any reviewer the scope or nature of questions about administration of a group such as this raises questions about whether a particular forum intends to follow particular ethical guidelines.If I’m following you right, I agree with some of what you've written here. But I would be very much interested in your opinion on my proposed variation on the 3-complaint rule. (I had problems with it, too, as I saw it proposed.)
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511068.html
Posted by Phillipa on June 12, 2005, at 20:25:53
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
The person asking about civility should be involved in the Thread being questioned. Otherwise it's like triangulation. Kind of Borderline. Fondly, Phillipa
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:31:51
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 20:03:22
>
> I don’t know about anyone else, but the queries I've been talking about are the ones that include identifiable quotes from and/or links to the poster and posts being challenged, thereby drawing attention not only to whether or not what was said is "OK", but also asking (even if indirectly) if said poster is civil. I don't think I'd object to someone asking "Is it within the guidelines of this forum to use the phrase ‘beating it [a subject] to death’?" But I do object to queries that point very specifically to what I or someone else has said. I object to it especially if the person asking 1) Has not asked the poster what he/she meant, or 2) Is not the subject of the post or thread, or 3) Is not actively participating in the thread, or at least the part of the thread being challenged. (Some threads here go on for years, with different posters entering and leaving along the way.)
> If I’m following you right, I agree with some of what you've written here. But I would be very much interested in your opinion on my proposed variation on the 3-complaint rule. (I had problems with it, too, as I saw it proposed.)
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050530/msgs/511068.html
>
I think we're fairly close in our opinions, though my recognition of any merit in the proposal is not based on a personal recognition of the merit, but rather, recognition that others consider it to have merit. I don't agree with the use of the word "civil" as a synonym for "compliant with terms of service" so of course I have concerns about anyone suggesting anyone else is not civil.I have no problem wording querries without citing the basis for the querry, and in my estimation based on archival reading, the practice of citing a post might have evolved from the administrator's request that such citations be included, after some people offered general querries that seemed to better serve the intent you seem to express in your proposal.
Otherwise, my critique of your point #3 is that some people, myself included, might avoid participating in threads where it appears there is confusion over what language will be deemed acceptable.
For example, I have stored on my hard-drive a message I wrote that suprises even myself, wherein I describe the health risks associated with inhaling tars, carbon-monoxide and pyrobenzines associated with a titration of a particular substance, laws against which were called, apparently with the administrator's endorsement, "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke." I will not publish the accurate and potentially life-saving (or at least life-extending) information until and unless I believe the thread is moderated in such a way that I can consider internal inconsistencies in my own behavior, values and judgements without one aspect of my potentially changed behavior or judgements being considered "hypocritical". I am not even certain I could, within the tolerance of administrative practices here, call my own shortness of breath, possibly shortened lifespan or occassional dullmindedness pathetic, in the way policies protecting others from realizing similar conditions have been called pathetic. I can say with certainty that an environment that discourages self-criticism is generally recognized as not condusive to self-improvement, and an environment where one's self-criticisms are associated with policies deemed to by "hypocritical" has presented to me such a situation.
Therefore, a requirement that a person participate in a thread before requesting clarification about the contents of a thread would seem counterproductive to me. If people want the three-complaint policy, I'm sure those seeking clarification can find general ways to seek clarification IF the administrator will afford time to offer such clarification and IF the administrator will allow citations of posts, or quotations from posts in the context of asking why he ruled one way on some occassions and another way on others and especially if the administrator does not then request people to post links to other's posts then use compliance with his request as the first, second or third expression of a complaint contrary to his proposed new rule intended to reduce inquiries about his definition of something even he could not define until he saw it.
Posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 22:08:58
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » Minnie-Haha, posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 20:31:51
> I think we're fairly close in our opinions, though my recognition of any merit in the proposal is not based on a personal recognition of the merit, but rather, recognition that others consider it to have merit. I don't agree with the use of the word "civil" as a synonym for "compliant with terms of service" so of course I have concerns about anyone suggesting anyone else is not civil.
It seems you prefer precise language, and there are times when I insist on it too, especially when I'm struggling to understand something or make myself absolutely clear. I use “civil” as a shorthand sometimes in these kinds of threads for longer terms like “compliant with terms of service” or “conducive to civic harmony and welfare… but also the mission of support and education.” But I think we’re basically talking about the same thing right? Guidelines for how to post, or “behave.”
> I have no problem wording querries without citing the basis for the querry, and in my estimation based on archival reading, the practice of citing a post might have evolved from the administrator's request that such citations be included, after some people offered general querries that seemed to better serve the intent you seem to express in your proposal.
>
> Otherwise, my critique of your point #3 is that some people, myself included, might avoid participating in threads where it appears there is confusion over what language will be deemed acceptable.
>
> For example, I have stored on my hard-drive a message I wrote that suprises even myself, wherein I describe the health risks associated with inhaling tars, carbon-monoxide and pyrobenzines associated with a titration of a particular substance, laws against which were called, apparently with the administrator's endorsement, "hypocritical" "pathetic" and "a joke." I will not publish the accurate and potentially life-saving (or at least life-extending) information until and unless I believe the thread is moderated in such a way that I can consider internal inconsistencies in my own behavior, values and judgements without one aspect of my potentially changed behavior or judgements being considered "hypocritical"…I followed this debate for awhile, but it was too much for me. I never formed an opinion one way or the other, but I do very much understand your bafflement (Is that a word?) I have been misunderstood too, IMO, and surprised to be blocked when I thought I was absolutely posting within the civility guidelines. So I follow your complaint in general. I do think PBCs and blocks sometimes get administered quickly here in some instances, and not so in others, and when I set the two “offenses” side by side – Well, it doesn’t feel right.
> Therefore, a requirement that a person participate in a thread before requesting clarification about the contents of a thread would seem counterproductive to me. If people want the three-complaint policy, I'm sure those seeking clarification can find general ways to seek clarification IF the administrator will afford time to offer such clarification and IF the administrator will allow citations of posts, or quotations from posts in the context of asking why he ruled one way on some occassions and another way on others and especially if the administrator does not then request people to post links to other's posts then use compliance with his request as the first, second or third expression of a complaint contrary to his proposed new rule intended to reduce inquiries about his definition of something even he could not define until he saw it.
If I’m following you here, I could see, yes, perhaps referring to a thread you’re not actively involved in, but which closely resembles one of your own posts or threads that has resulted in a PBC or block. My complaint is with habitual challenges to others’ civility. I should expect anyone might make these kinds of requests from time to time, but when they come up daily, sometimes several times a day, that’s what I object to. I think you understand me, don’t you?
Posted by so on June 12, 2005, at 23:46:14
In reply to Re: any chance we could... » so, posted by Minnie-Haha on June 12, 2005, at 22:08:58
I should expect anyone might make these kinds of requests from time to time, but when they come up daily, sometimes several times a day, that’s what I object to. I think you understand me, don’t you?
>
I understand your objection to the sort of posts in question, and appreciate that your objection reflects actual difficulties you encounter. But while I understand your objections, I see the daily presence of such posts as conveying a different meaning. I don't see such routine questions about administrative decisions at other boards, which could lead to the conclusion that administration of other boards is not as questionable.I see them as evidence that the administrator is operating the board in such a way people can easily and routinely find occassions to ask about what presents to them confusion about administrative involvement, or possibly as evidence that the administrator has not articulated his terms of service in a way that is easy for some people to understand. His statement that even he doesn't know what he expects until he sees something that doesn't fit his expectation tends to support my view that he can never accurately explain his expectations until he develops in advance a vision of what he expects and commits himself to evenhanded administration of that vision.
Posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:38:28
In reply to Another suggestion, more serious this time, posted by Racer on June 11, 2005, at 14:51:55
> Instead of posting a link here, asking that a post be reviewed for civility, how about a function to allow posts to be sent via email
I think there are pros and cons to different approaches:
> When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity “behind the scenes,” and allowing others to contribute to the process.
http://www.dr-bob.org/download/CP_3_6_p935-950.pdf
Bob
Posted by Racer on June 14, 2005, at 1:24:20
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:38:28
> > Instead of posting a link here, asking that a post be reviewed for civility, how about a function to allow posts to be sent via email
>
> I think there are pros and cons to different approaches:
>
> > When posters are considered by the author not to have been civil, messages to that effect are posted. Others would do this privately, by email, and that would have the advantage of being less embarrassing. If done with sensitivity, however, posting offers the advantages of clarifying the limits for others, modeling conflict resolution, diminishing any paranoia about activity “behind the scenes,” and allowing others to contribute to the process.
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/download/CP_3_6_p935-950.pdf
>
> BobFair enough, and makes sense. I am still more than a little bothered by what I'm seeing here, though, and wonder if a rule like, "Before posting on Admin, try to work it out with the poster involved" might help?
That's just off the top of my very tired and rather pointy head, so don't spend too much time musing on it...
Peace.
Posted by Dinah on June 14, 2005, at 9:49:53
In reply to Re: Another suggestion, posted by Dr. Bob on June 14, 2005, at 0:38:28
Your end of it still would be public, if you found that something wasn't civil. Wouldn't that still accomplish your goal?
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.