![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 39 to 63 of 71. Go back in thread:
Posted by SLS on February 22, 2008, at 15:33:15
In reply to Lou's request to Scott for identification-thwywewr » SLS, posted by Lou Pilder on February 22, 2008, at 13:59:03
Sorry... This is more of a spontaneous venting than a well-deliberated treatise. It might not be a perfect use of anyone's time to read it.
--------------------------------------------------------------
> > ...and it was what it was. I can tell the difference. There is much I do like about Psycho-Babble now, much of which comes from moderation. I doubt I will invest my time anywhere else. Still, I must question the degree of intrusion. The good doctor applies grammar strictly and logically - equally. However, this type of logic and desire for a utopian society can cause an ever-expanding set of sanctionable rules in an effort to make it so.
> >
> > My comments along this thread are meant to be provocative and get people thinking. My personal relationship with PB is complex, and too difficult to verbalize here. It does, however, change over time, as do most relationships. Both I and PB are evolving entities. I have reservations as to where these changes are headed. I feel less comfortable rather than more comfortable as the administration of PB has changed in 1 1/2 years. Perhaps my perspective is rather unique as I had the opportunity to witness a before and after observation of how the environment here has, in my judgment, deteriorated. Perhaps this is melodrama, but I hope my point is made and not necessarily agreed upon. It is what it is, regardless of our personal relationships with Psycho-Babble. These are, because of human nature, quite diverse. I don't like that I see less diversity in the personality of posts. Of course, this is a personal opinion that may have more to do with me than with PB.
> >
> > I don't know.
> >
> > It is what it is.
> >
> > I think I'll hang around a bit longer.
> >
> >
> > - Scott
>
> Scott,
> You wrote,[...administration of PB has changed in 1 1/2 years...it is what it is...].
> Could you identify in more detail what in the administration here has changed from 1 1/2 years ago? If you could, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
> In any reply to me, could you include in your opinion as to if the 3-consecutive post rule was a good idea or not and had anything to do with it is what it is? And if something is what it is, could that mean that what was is what is not?
> Lou
Hi Lou.
Your requests for specificity always tickle me. They are fraught with pure logic that can be somewhat difficult for me to respond to. In some ways, the purity of your logic is intimidating.Don't worry too much about what I said above. It was meant to be more of a complement than a pejorative.
Let's see...
I think there is a feeling of intrusiveness when threads are peppered with PBCs. The threads are no longer a serial of relevant content as they are more of an exercise in format and diction. I feel like a child having to take a quiz - and get graded on it. There is a fear of retribution should the author not pass the quiz. Better that one not take the quiz at all. It is embarrassing to be punished in front of all of cyberspace.
For me, this is more of a nuisance than a catastrophe. There have been many whom regarded this guided speech to be stifling, and have subsequently left. These were good people. They were people of knowledge and investigation. They were people of passion. They were people of great concern for the needs of others. They brought a great deal of continuity here. It was safe to say things here. I think these people reached a threshold of tolerance for the constant punitive intrusions and just said to themselves, "The heck with it" (or perhaps something more vulgar and expletive). I left here 1 1/2 years ago because of content. I feel as if I might want to leave because of format.
I think the moderator has a good grasp of what constitutes civility as it applies to his own speech. That he judges civility so pervasively is a reflection of his quest for perfection. But people aren't, nor can they be, perfect. I do not question the perfection of Dr. Hsiung's conceptualization of grammar and diction. I do question his heavy-handed intrusions that make people want to post less or leave entirely. While this is a subjective judgment on my part, the flight of people from this site is fact.
I think I know why some people leave and then come back. They need to fill time. Posting on Psycho-Babble can be a great diversion. Sometimes, the need for diversion is stronger than the need to be true to one's convictions. I guess convictions come and go. I just wish that the threat of convictions were not such an overwhelming and never-ending activity of the moderators.
I don't think there is anything wrong with ensuring a sense of safety at Psycho-Babble.
I think there should be less emphasis on the attainment of perfection and more allowance for imperfection. People should be allowed to be the imperfect creatures that they are. Perhaps an imperfect enforcement of the doctor's rules of civility is more desirable than the current zero-tolerance application of them. Perhaps. I would sure like to see punitive actions occur here less frequently. I don't care whether it is due to an embracement of the doctor's rules of speech, or a reduction in the frequency of comment and sanction by the moderators.
Now, I am very much conflicted regarding the enforcement of rules for civil conduct here. It helps prevent this place from becoming an ASD.
(alt.support.depression). This is a good thing. That so many good people left Psycho-Babble upon their declaration of intolerance to the doctor's rules is a bad thing. I guess that's all I really care about.
- Scott
P.S. I still believe that there should be a limit to the numbers of consecutive posts allowed. A limit of 3 seems to be working well.
Posted by fayeroe on February 22, 2008, at 23:09:48
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble is dying., posted by SLS on February 20, 2008, at 9:08:25
Would it be considered uncivil to begin planning the funeral?
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2008, at 23:14:41
In reply to Re: Lou's request to Scott for identification-thwy » Lou Pilder, posted by SLS on February 22, 2008, at 15:33:15
> I think there should be less emphasis on the attainment of perfection and more allowance for imperfection.
How much more imperfection?
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2008, at 23:21:50
In reply to Re: Plus: » Jamal Spelling, posted by medjuggler on February 22, 2008, at 10:51:44
> 'rumours & gossip' caused by one 'particular individual' ... (yeah you know who you are!)
Please don't post anything that could lead others 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.
I encourage anyone who has questions about this or about posting policies in general, or is interested in alternative ways of expressing themselves, to 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.
> I've felt the need to change my name
Thanks for letting us know,
Bob
Posted by Sigismund on February 22, 2008, at 23:32:36
In reply to Re: allowance for imperfection, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2008, at 23:14:41
Too much emphasis on support and education can (and does) lead to an unneccessarily humourless style.
>How much more imperfection?
A fair bit.
Posted by SLS on February 23, 2008, at 5:51:44
In reply to Re: allowance for imperfection, posted by Dr. Bob on February 22, 2008, at 23:14:41
> > I think there should be less emphasis on the attainment of perfection and more allowance for imperfection.
>
> How much more imperfection?This question rests on the assumption that there is a lack of perfection on your part in governing already. How much more imperfection should you tolerate? I would suggest that since you recognize that there is a tolerance on your part for a certain degree of imperfection, that you perhaps tolerate more.
To be honest, I am in awe of your conception and implementation of civility. They really are close to being perfect. I don't mean to be unnecessarily flattering, but that is my opinion. Perhaps you have taken this into consideration already (I imagine you have), but I have seen, what is in my mind a tragic loss of novice and expert membership. I know being either type of member does not immunize one from being uncivil. Perhaps a perfect implementation of civility is de facto imperfect if the rate of attrition is greater than the retention of people posting.
I know what I wrote above is going to seem like the waffling of some politicians. However, I am truly conflicted over this issue; the issue being the density of PBCs and posting blocks versus the benefits to the community of a strict enforcement of your rules of civility.
I hope someone can convince me that the people who left the posting community of Psycho-Babble would have done so despite the advent of civility guidelines. Of course, I won't disclose the names of these fine people, but perhaps some of the continuous members to PB will remember them. I will say that I am quite happy to see that certain members have indeed posted this last week. They didn't all disappear.
How much imperfection? Enough to have prevented so many people from leaving. Unfortunately, I have no statistics. My appraisal of the numbers who have fled is necessarily subject to my own subjectivity. How you interpret your rules and their degree of enforcement can be subjective as well.
It is a matter of tolerance. It is a matter of degree. It is an issue of subjectivity inherent in human judgment. Perhaps you can deliberate the desirability of your degree of enforcement based upon your appraisal of the subjectivity that must accompany the human judgment of the behavior of human beings.
- Scott
Posted by Justherself54 on February 23, 2008, at 9:31:19
In reply to Re: allowance for imperfection, posted by SLS on February 23, 2008, at 5:51:44
I'm still not sure if I'm going to stay at Babble.
I'm not as articulate as a lot of posters who have resonded on this thread but this I will say. I would like to see more allowance given to posters who come to the defense of others and who are trying to be civil but got "caught up in the moment".
I think a simple chance to apologize for being "uncivil" would suffice in these instances, instead of being blocked. To me it fits right in with the dictionary description of ostrasize.
Definition of Ostracize
Os´tra`cize
v. t.1.(Gr. Antiq.) To exile by ostracism; to banish by a popular vote, as at Athens.
[imp. & p. p. Ostracized ; p. pr. & vb. n. Ostracizing .]
2.To banish from society, by a general consent; to exclude from social, political, or private favor; to exclude from conversation or friendship; to shun; as, he was ostracized by his former friends. A person may be ostracized by a formal vote or by a widespread but informal agreement.
I was brought up to defend the underdog, so when I see someone being picked on and another poster comes to their defense and gets blocked for it, it gets right up my nose.The only time I ever received a PBC was when someone came on and was rude and antagonistic and I responded "off the hip" and got a PBC which infuriated me at the time. Blocking to me is also discipline. When I see someone get blocked for defending someone I get the feeling of being sent to my room. But here you get sent for a week or three. I would never discipline my own child that harshly.
The PBC's and blocking stifle open discussion. You see it on every thread where people are passionate on a subject. Someone gets blocked for generalizations or breaking one of the dreaded civility rules and the discussion ends up going nowhere because posters are then scared to respond for fear of also getting blocked. I sometimes get uncomfortable knowing that someone is listening over my shoulder and not joining in the conversation but is simply there to ensure I don't break any conversation rules.
I feel guilty for not posting to someone who is asking for help but I'm still angry at the stringent rules of the site..so I feel at a crossroads and don't know which one to take.
That's my ramblings for this morning.
Posted by phoenix1 on February 23, 2008, at 12:09:58
In reply to Re: allowance for imperfection, posted by Justherself54 on February 23, 2008, at 9:31:19
Hi all,
I'm back from by block (I think). I'm not leaving babble just yet, but I won't be posting much on admin. I just don't know how not to cross the (seemingly flexible) line between civility and incivility. It's also nearly impossible and useless to debate or defend using completely civil language. I can't say I totally agree with the application of the civility rules, except to say they are necessary in some cases, but seem to be haphazardly applied within a certain "gray" zone.
Anyways, I'm back because I was given so much support here when I needed it. I feel obligated to help others now that I'm feeling so much better.
And Justherself, I agree with your last post, and thanks for the support!
Phoenix1
> I'm still not sure if I'm going to stay at Babble.
>
> I'm not as articulate as a lot of posters who have resonded on this thread but this I will say. I would like to see more allowance given to posters who come to the defense of others and who are trying to be civil but got "caught up in the moment".
>
> I think a simple chance to apologize for being "uncivil" would suffice in these instances, instead of being blocked. To me it fits right in with the dictionary description of ostrasize.
>
> Definition of Ostracize
> Os´tra`cize
> v. t.1.(Gr. Antiq.) To exile by ostracism; to banish by a popular vote, as at Athens.
> [imp. & p. p. Ostracized ; p. pr. & vb. n. Ostracizing .]
> 2.To banish from society, by a general consent; to exclude from social, political, or private favor; to exclude from conversation or friendship; to shun; as, he was ostracized by his former friends. A person may be ostracized by a formal vote or by a widespread but informal agreement.
>
>
> I was brought up to defend the underdog, so when I see someone being picked on and another poster comes to their defense and gets blocked for it, it gets right up my nose.
>
> The only time I ever received a PBC was when someone came on and was rude and antagonistic and I responded "off the hip" and got a PBC which infuriated me at the time. Blocking to me is also discipline. When I see someone get blocked for defending someone I get the feeling of being sent to my room. But here you get sent for a week or three. I would never discipline my own child that harshly.
>
> The PBC's and blocking stifle open discussion. You see it on every thread where people are passionate on a subject. Someone gets blocked for generalizations or breaking one of the dreaded civility rules and the discussion ends up going nowhere because posters are then scared to respond for fear of also getting blocked. I sometimes get uncomfortable knowing that someone is listening over my shoulder and not joining in the conversation but is simply there to ensure I don't break any conversation rules.
>
> I feel guilty for not posting to someone who is asking for help but I'm still angry at the stringent rules of the site..so I feel at a crossroads and don't know which one to take.
>
> That's my ramblings for this morning.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Posted by phoenix1 on February 23, 2008, at 12:38:51
In reply to Psycho-Babble is dying., posted by SLS on February 19, 2008, at 6:05:11
I don't know if Psycho-Babble is dying. It's sad to see some of the long-time posters leaving. (I read this board religiously for 4 years before ever signing up and posting) So it's not at all the same board when there is an influx of new users and an outflux of old timers. In that respect, the old Psycho-Babble is dying, and I'm not sure how much I like the new one.
I do know that the civility rules have caused people to leave out of sheer frustration. I also know that there are lot's of people who are reading, but feel a fear of posting because they are unclear on how their post will be accepted by the administration. I'm beginning to learn this fear unfortunately. I don't feel I can say what I mean without getting disciplined. And if I can't say what I actually want to say, then what is the point in posting if it will just cause another block or PBC? Bob recomended this himself, something to the effect of "you may not have anything civil to say on particular threads, in which case you can avoid them". But how can there be healthy debate or defense of oneself with the current civility rules?
Anyways, Im straying from the purpose of this response. The current civility rules are changing the nature of babble, and I don't think it is for the good. The problem is that I haven't found a better forum out there. But if I don't feel that this is a safe and healthy community to be a part of, maybe babble isn't right for me either...
Phoenix1
> > Is Psycho-Babble dying?
>
> Yes.
>
> Is it dead yet?
>
> Not quite.
>
> Where did everybody go?
>
> I don't know. However, I would guess that a sizable percentage of people migrated to other sites. These people, de facto, find their new posting environment more appealing than that of Psycho-Babble.
>
> There is the possibility that changes in the administration of this website could resurrect it from its demise.
>
> I need to think about this some more.
>
> All I know is that my reduced desire to post is directly attributable to the rate of attrition at Psycho-Babble. Nothing turns me on anymore.
>
> Shall I be more specific regarding the posting environment here? I think I will leave this discussion to the administration to answer for themselves after they deliberate on the causes for the decay of Psycho-Babble.
>
> I would hate to leave here so soon after my return, but I am afraid that this is a possibility. I doubt that my personal dilemma is shared by everyone here. Maybe Scott must change.
>
> Yeah, right.
>
>
> - Scott
>
Posted by medjuggler on February 23, 2008, at 13:36:42
In reply to My time out is over. I'll be a good boy now. » Justherself54, posted by phoenix1 on February 23, 2008, at 12:09:58
Wellcome back friend! :)
mj
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2008, at 16:14:31
In reply to Re: Psycho-Babble is dying., posted by Toph on February 20, 2008, at 21:21:09
> I may be mistaken but the vitality of Psycho-Babble seems to mirror the interest it's founder has in it.
That's an interesting theory, let's come back to this. How would my interest affect its vitality?
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 27, 2008, at 17:25:07
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has, posted by Dr. Bob on March 27, 2008, at 16:14:31
> > I may be mistaken but the vitality of Psycho-Babble seems to mirror the interest it's founder has in it.
>
> That's an interesting theory, let's come back to this. How would my interest affect its vitality?
>
> BobIt's probably not true, of course, because if I have this correct your interest (probably should be "active involvement") was highest at the site's inception when census was low. As you became less involved census continued to rise. I don't know what correlation there is between usage peaking, when it began to decline and when you began to rely more on moderators.
I've been here 3 years. It's my impression that since I first participated when I have sensed your presence less, I have been less involved and the boards have fewer paraticipants. This is just my sense of things. Ironically, when you left altogether, my participation sharply increased, so what do I know?
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2008, at 0:36:40
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has, posted by Toph on March 27, 2008, at 17:25:07
> It's my impression that since I first participated when I have sensed your presence less, I have been less involved and the boards have fewer paraticipants. This is just my sense of things.
You may be right, what I'm wondering is what the connection would be, how my being less present would lead to posters being less involved. Any ideas?
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 28, 2008, at 7:32:00
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2008, at 0:36:40
Maybe who you represented to posters, be it an idealized parental figure that some may have wanted to please or the repressor who others needed to vilify, played a part in driving many to have interest and participate. Or in my case, maybe both images were in play.
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2008, at 10:28:51
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on March 28, 2008, at 7:32:00
> Maybe who you represented to posters, be it an idealized parental figure that some may have wanted to please or the repressor who others needed to vilify, played a part in driving many to have interest and participate. Or in my case, maybe both images were in play.
Thanks, I appreciate your reflecting on and being open about this.
So if I'm not around to please or vilify, then there's no "outlet" here for those needs, so less reason to stay? What about pleasing or vilifying the deputies?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on March 28, 2008, at 10:58:25
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on March 28, 2008, at 7:32:00
This might be similar to what you're saying. But it seems to me that when Dr. Bob is here, there is the impression that the store is minded, the owner is taking pride and ownership in his "product" and that the environment is safer and more well tended.
Even if in practice, when he's here, we might not like his tending.
But even that unifies us, and gives us a common enemy, and thus increases group cohesiveness and increases posting.
Posted by Toph on March 28, 2008, at 15:28:04
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has » Toph, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2008, at 10:58:25
Well said Dinah. Safety, a shared purpose - be it in support or in criticism - adds to cohesion and participation.
Some come for information, some for distraction, others to disclose sensitive parts of themselves. What keeps many involved is a group dynamic, a sense of identification, belonging, or acceptance by peers. Group effects would seem to be independent of the sense of the administraor's presence.
Posted by muffled on March 28, 2008, at 20:47:22
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has » Toph, posted by Dinah on March 28, 2008, at 10:58:25
#> Maybe who you represented to posters, be it an idealized parental figure that some may have wanted to please or the repressor who others needed to vilify, played a part in driving many to have interest and participate. Or in my case, maybe both images were in play.
*to me it was both. It felt (mostly) kinda cosy/safe w/Bob watching over us, checking the boards. But at the same time I didn't know who the F he was, so I wasn't so sure of him. I kept worrying over his motivations....(still do sometimes...)
At the same time ...oh how I LOVE to hate him...LOL!!! Actually its not as much fun as it was. But still some part of me still does. HA!
Bob also has a sort of fascination(VERY vaguely for me, but perhaps more so for others) cuz he is in a position of owning the place.
I just realized!!! LOL!!! I accuse Bob of watching US like we lab rats.....ROFL!!!! I think *I* do the same watching him!!!OMG ROFL!!!! This strikes me as hilarious!!!!
I been feeling very philosopherish lately.So this discussion is interesting.> This might be similar to what you're saying. But it seems to me that when Dr. Bob is here, there is the impression that the store is minded, the owner is taking pride and ownership in his "product" and that the environment is safer and more well tended.
*to me this is a different thought Dinah and VERY true as well.
> Even if in practice, when he's here, we might not like his tending.
> But even that unifies us, and gives us a common enemy, and thus increases group cohesiveness and increases posting.
*DEFINATELY if you ask me....good thing Bob seems to put up w/the crapola eh!!!M
Posted by muffled on March 28, 2008, at 21:11:58
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has » Dinah, posted by muffled on March 28, 2008, at 20:47:22
Babble for me is about the people here.
Special people.
Real people.
Amazing people.
Caring people.
Strong and corageous people who march onwards despite adversity.
People who are so kind and supportive to me and give me so much.
It gives to me to give to others as well. I learn, I feel good. I am included, I am not despised.
Hell it just makes me feel good!
Its about them for me much more so than Bob.
Which is why I worry bout Bob, cuz his actions hurt those people sometimes. And often I just don't think he 'gets' it. Or maybe he's just so busy he hasn't enuf time to think about and 'get' it.
Anyways, THAT is what is intolerable to me.
Feeling powerless to help :-(
Cuz Bob is Bob, and he is who he is.
But I not quite so sure I can deal w/him in his inconsistancy.
But maybe it will be better in future....
Dunno.
M
Posted by Toph on March 29, 2008, at 9:11:01
In reply to Re: the presence of it's founder, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2008, at 10:28:51
> So if I'm not around to please or vilify, then there's no "outlet" here for those needs, so less reason to stay? What about pleasing or vilifying the deputies?
>
> BobOh, there's some of that, but mostly whenever they act like you. As much as I like them and respect them, I don't think there's much idealization of the deputies as deputies, only as people. After all there're fundamentally one of us, despite how much they may act like you administratively. They disclose personal things, they laugh and cry with us - they even get pissed at you like us! Nope, Bob, a reply from you is still more special than one from a deputy no matter the content.
Despite how much I despise Chaney, it will always be W who I vilify the most. While he likely has little to do with the design and implimentation of his own administration's policies, they bear his name, so he gets the blame in my mind.
Posted by Phillipa on March 29, 2008, at 18:58:48
In reply to Re: the presence of it's founder, posted by Dr. Bob on March 28, 2008, at 10:28:51
Dr. Bob because you represent safety to me. And as the deputies are all voluneers they are not always here to clean up messes. Just my though Phillipa
Posted by Dinah on March 29, 2008, at 22:27:28
In reply to Re: the presence of it's founder » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on March 29, 2008, at 9:11:01
> Oh, there's some of that, but mostly whenever they act like you. As much as I like them and respect them, I don't think there's much idealization of the deputies as deputies, only as people. After all there're fundamentally one of us, despite how much they may act like you administratively. They disclose personal things, they laugh and cry with us - they even get pissed at you like us! Nope, Bob, a reply from you is still more special than one from a deputy no matter the content.
I think that's my favorite ever description of deputies. :)
Posted by muffled on March 29, 2008, at 22:56:26
In reply to Re: the presence of it's founder » Dr. Bob, posted by Toph on March 29, 2008, at 9:11:01
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2008, at 12:36:49
In reply to Re: the interest it's founder has » Dinah, posted by muffled on March 28, 2008, at 20:47:22
> I don't think there's much idealization of the deputies as deputies, only as people. After all there're fundamentally one of us, despite how much they may act like you administratively. They disclose personal things, they laugh and cry with us - they even get pissed at you like us!
>
> Toph
Thanks for continuing to explore this. That makes sense, they may be able to act administratively, but they may not function as well as that sort of "outlet".--
> it seems to me that when Dr. Bob is here, there is the impression that the store is minded, the owner is taking pride and ownership in his "product"
>
> Even if in practice, when he's here, we might not like his tending.
>
> DinahI can see that, too. There's a difference between the owner and the deputies minding the store. But I do take pride in the deputies, too.
--
> Bob also has a sort of fascination(VERY vaguely for me, but perhaps more so for others) cuz he is in a position of owning the place.
> I just realized!!! LOL!!! I accuse Bob of watching US like we lab rats.....ROFL!!!! I think *I* do the same watching him!!!OMG ROFL!!!! This strikes me as hilarious!!!!
>
> MAnd a real insight, I think. Maybe there are posters who not only watch, but also "experiment" on me!
Bob
Posted by Toph on March 30, 2008, at 13:24:50
In reply to Re: the presence of it's founder, posted by Dr. Bob on March 30, 2008, at 12:36:49
> That makes sense, they (deputies) may be able to act administratively, but they may not function as well as that sort of "outlet".
>
> Bob
>Not sure what you are implying here Bob. Deputies can't take the heat because they are not as skilled as you; they post as Babblers and you don't; they are more sensitive than you; they care more about what we think than you do, what?
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.