![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 38 to 62 of 102. Go back in thread:
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:32
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 17:43:00
Does it not make sense then that the posters expect Bob to show compassion and empathy for them? I see what I think are empty apologies from Bob. And , of course, I also see a refusal by Bob to consider anything that any of us say about the blocks.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:35
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 17:43:00
That's how my mother raised me, except for the rare instances when she lost her temper. Rules were never just handed out, they always were introduced with the reason for them. I was never sent to my room for a half hour. I was sent to my room until I was ready to follow house rules.
Any attempt on my part to blame my mean old parents for my punishment carried the added burden of having to recognize that if I understood the rules and chose to break them, then it was my responsibility, and I could make a different choice next time.
Sometimes I did break them knowingly. My father withheld my allowance until I started going to his church with him. I'd have gone gladly if he'd told me he'd like his company, but I considered it against my personal code of honor to go to church in order to receive money. I quit going to church, and I quit getting an allowance, and I lived with that, because it was what I chose to do.
I was allowed to lobby for changes in the rules, but while they were rules, I was expected to obey them. Moreover the rules were not overly onerous or inflexible. I often did try to wheedle extra time when my mother called for example. Or I could and did argue until I was blue in the face, usually. I just argued while I followed the rules.
I was never shamed for breaking the rules. Well, I hated to disappoint my parents of course. But it was accepted that people make bad choices but that that didn't mean they were fated forever to make the same choices. The behavior was separate from the person.
Well, with my mother at least.
It seems sensible to me.
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:13:14
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:32
I don't understand the connection.
They appear to be separate issues to me.
What Dr. Bob does is what Dr. Bob does. What each of us choose to do is what each of us chooses to do.
I think Dr. Bob can be convinced that another path is preferable to the one he's on. I'm guessing he'd be best convinced by cogent arguments presented respectfully.
Posted by Sigismund on July 7, 2009, at 18:23:41
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:13:14
>I'm guessing he'd be best convinced by cogent arguments presented respectfully.
Maybe.
I don't want to see this piece of cogent argument disappear into the archives
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/904596.html
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:29:09
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » fayeroe, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:13:14
Is it possible for you to more encouraging and less blaming in your introduction of this idea? Not all circumstances are the same. And not all people are called upon to fill all roles. This is after all a mental health site, I think it's reasonable to assume there might be some anxiety and social phobia, and while it's fine to encourage people to help in the way you mention, I don't think those who don't feel able to do what you ask ought to feel guilty.
Maybe some people would be better suited to posting gentle positive support to Poster #2. Nothing negative to Poster #1, but assuring them that they don't think they're a (whatever), and they've always enjoyed their posts. That is a perfectly valid role in the Babble community too.
And I know you don't read every thread, but I think if you look at this as more than one post, you'll likely see that people do encourage posters to follow site guidelines. Either by explaining them, or expressing their feelings about wanting the poster to stay and not be blocked, or in many other ways - some off board. A relationship among babblers can't be judged on one thread. And no matter the support and encouragement from other Babblers, in the end it is the choice of the poster what they wish to do.
So, for example in this instance, wouldn't it be equally valid (and perhaps better received) if you expressed distress that the block happened, support for the second poster, thanks to those who tried to help, and a hope that in the future things will turn out differently and the poster will choose to remain part of this terrific community?
Posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:35:36
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!!, posted by Sigismund on July 7, 2009, at 18:23:41
Perhaps Dr. Bob is expressing regret rather than apologizing?
It would be odd in a leader to apologize for doing what he thinks is right. It would make more sense for him to express regret that some people feel hurt as a result of his trying to do what's best for Babble.
I don't think he ought to apologize for doing his job. If on the other hand he is apologizing for expressing himself badly, he may be committed to try to express himself better in future. If he is apologizing for making an error, I assume it is his intent not to make errors.
Now, I've never been fond of the ubiquitous therapist "I'm sorry you feel that way." which is neither fish nor fowl nor good red herring.
Posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 19:22:00
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:29:09
Posted by Timne on July 7, 2009, at 19:57:58
In reply to Dr Bob, posted by Dinah on July 7, 2009, at 18:29:09
That "sorry the community didn't" comment caught my attention, too. I've read up a bit on the doctrines behind administration of this site, and understand that the putative architecture is one in which group members offer support, and the site owner does primarily admin stuff.
This raises an interesting question. Does the Mr. Hsuing consider himself a member of the community? It could be consistent with his published goals to not not to consider himself part of the direct support network, but how could an owner of a community not be a member? Slum-lord isn't the only conclusion, and absentee landlord doesn't entirely describe the situation, but to whatever extent he is involved here -- and he clearly has been for as long as this thing has been here -- he would seem a member of the community. If not, well, that seems a bit removed and some people might see it as condescending.
Then, if he's not a member of the community, he does seem to blame the tenants for not getting along when he was the one who primarily determined what boundaries would be set, so the tenants can't shoulder all the blame. If he is a member of the community, he seems to be shouldering some blame, but not exclusively.
Is this an admission of failure or an expression of hopes? If it's an admission of failure, I would prefer to see more clear admission of one's role in the failure, rather than blaming all the other drivers on the road, too. If it's an expression of hope, couching it as an apology on someone else's behalf (the community) might be off target. What I think I hear is that he wishes there was a way to inspire "the community" to resolve these things. "Sorry" is a bit toward "there probably isn't a way, we've tried," whereas "I'm searching my soul for a way to make it happen" is more forward looking and doesn't suggest he's stuck with nowhere else to turn.
This is not atypical for people who put themselves in a position of authority with no oversight. When your only checks and balances are those over whom you have a modicum of authority, it can be difficult to find inspiration to resolve problems. The Web has not moved in the direction he set here, with dynamic personalities leading long-term communities. Personalities have gravitated toward personality sites -- blogs -- where it is clear the editorial policy is idiosyncratic to the particular personality. Forums instead have moved toward more anonymous oversight, with the rules and general brand concept providing the "personality" that sets tone on a site. You'd think at some point he might get tired of carrying the load alone, and consider his guests worthy of leadership beyond his unsupervised offering and that he recruits volunteer members to offer under his guidance. -- maybe he asks casually for advice, but a board of qualified advisors and a brand more focused on concept than on personality might go a long way to quell his need to apologize for things he doesn't really seem eager or able to change.
My $0.02
Posted by henrietta on July 7, 2009, at 20:29:16
In reply to Re: what to say? » henrietta, posted by seldomseen on July 7, 2009, at 16:42:33
If you don't understand it, count yourself lucky.
Posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2009, at 21:50:38
In reply to Re: BLAMING the COMMUNITY! I've had it!!!!! STOP IT!! » Dinah, posted by fayeroe on July 7, 2009, at 18:10:32
> Does it not make sense then that the posters expect Bob to show compassion and empathy for them? I see what I think are empty apologies from Bob. And , of course, I also see a refusal by Bob to consider anything that any of us say about the blocks.
fayeroe,
You wrote,[...empty apologies...refusal to consider...].
I am unsure as to what the criteria that you use to determine if an apology is empty. If you could post here what criteria that you use to determine that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
As to a refusal to consider, my undersyanding of what it means to consider something may be different than yours. Could you post here how you determine if one refuses to consider? If you could then I could have a better understning of what this refusal could entail and responfd accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Poet on July 8, 2009, at 9:25:51
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, posted by Timne on July 7, 2009, at 19:57:58
I rarely look at the admin board because if I wanted to view a Roman Forum I'd watch "Spartacus."
It seems to me that Verne was asking to be blocked, even in his apology to Deneb and myself he was surprised that he wasn't blocked already.
I chose to ignore what Verne posted to me, which must put me as part of the community that didn't intervene. I know deputies were notified so the proper channels were gone through. I guess if this situation occurs again I will risk a PBC and ask directly for an apology or retraction of the statement which would be an intervention.
I am sorry the for the length of Verne's block, but am rather confused as to how the babble community appears to be to blame for it.
Poet
Posted by Dinah on July 8, 2009, at 9:49:38
In reply to Re: Dr Bob, posted by Poet on July 8, 2009, at 9:25:51
Poet, I was the Administrative presence who responded to your situation. I did so as best I could in accordance with my understanding of site guidelines and Dr. Bob's wishes. But I think my actions let you down, and I really regret that.
I don't think you should have to risk a PBC to ask for an apology. I don't think you should have to, even if you weren't risking a PBC. I think it is Administration's responsibility to provide an environment where people aren't forced to defend themselves. I recognize that there is value in learning how to stand up for oneself against incivility. But I don't think a mental health support board is someplace you should have to do that. I think a mental health support board is a place where you can go and expect to have an environment where you can feel reasonably safe to post private and personal thoughts.
It may be that my values are out of step with reality or the wishes of the majority here. Perhaps Babble has moved on, and I haven't.
But I don't think it was your responsibility to do anything but be civil yourself. I think it is administration's responsibility to provide the structure of the environment. If the community wishes to try to help those they care about, in terms of encouraging them to recognize that people on an internet board are real people who can feel hurt, or wish to help them reframe the situation so that they can be civil, that's fine.
In my opinion...
It is administration's responsibility to provide a safe environment, as best they can.
It is a poster's responsibility to follow site guidelines, if only because they agreed to do so when they registered to post.
It is the community's responsibility to provide support to each other, in whatever way they feel they are able to do so. I don't think it is any individual's responsibility to provide support to any individual in particular in any particular way.
In particular, I don't think you had the slightest responsibility to do anything but remain civil yourself until Admin responded.
Posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2009, at 16:45:38
In reply to Lou's request-refucon » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2009, at 21:50:38
Posted by obsidian on July 9, 2009, at 0:12:20
In reply to No, thanks, Lou. (nm) » Lou Pilder, posted by fayeroe on July 8, 2009, at 16:45:38
It was my impression that perhaps some of us were familiar with verne's pattern, that there was anger at his being blocked because some understood the behavior that resulted in blocks as part of his struggle.
Since some had that understanding I felt that perhaps Dr Bob was perhaps being more tolerant in the hopes that those who understood could attempt to help him rather than being upset about the behavior. I did not perceive it as a burden placed on the community, but rather a hope that a more tolerant attitude amongst peers would help him through whatever was going on.
IMHO of course....
-sid
Posted by rjlockhart04-08 on July 9, 2009, at 0:50:30
In reply to I get the feeling that Dr. Bob can't win....., posted by obsidian on July 9, 2009, at 0:12:20
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 8:25:44
In reply to I get the feeling that Dr. Bob can't win....., posted by obsidian on July 9, 2009, at 0:12:20
> It was my impression that perhaps some of us were familiar with verne's pattern, that there was anger at his being blocked because some understood the behavior that resulted in blocks as part of his struggle.
> Since some had that understanding I felt that perhaps Dr Bob was perhaps being more tolerant in the hopes that those who understood could attempt to help him rather than being upset about the behavior. I did not perceive it as a burden placed on the community, but rather a hope that a more tolerant attitude amongst peers would help him through whatever was going on.
> IMHO of course....
> -sid
>I think you're far closer to the truth than anyone else, myself included. My guess is that he has a few goals. I wish he would be more forthright in explaining them instead of trying to express them experientially. I prefer the forthright explanation, with examples.
For me, I think the emphasis should be on providing a safe environment to the vulnerable posters who come here with a reasonable expectation that they will not be subject to incivility and that Admin will provide a structure that will protect them, as much as possible, from incivility. And that it's fine to try to help posters, but not at the expense of other posters.
Dr. Bob is nicer than me I think, as you are, Sid.
I really am beginning to wonder if I am out of step in this day and age.
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 11:52:49
In reply to Re: Dr Bob » Poet, posted by Dinah on July 8, 2009, at 9:49:38
> He was blocked 1 hour and 7 minutes after his posted. I did not see Verne's post until a few days later, and personally, I can't be here all the time as I'm a mom with real life duties.
>
> Are you saying that we should have tried to get him to rephrase/apologize within an hour of his post...before getting blocked?
>
> AvaRegarding having only an hour to respond, I don't think I can add anything to:
> There were a lot of posts from before by verne and you could just see where it was going. If somebody had stepped in and just tried to detour him from getting to this point and maybe offered to help him with whatever was troubling him, maybe it would have helped.
>
> I think that verne was just needing some help. It sucks that now he doesn't have PB to help him.
>
> HyperFocus> We all could think ... about what we did to help Verne after his PBC, knowing, as we do, how much and how likely he is to be blocked-- and how prone he is to say things that may be problematic.
>
> NadezdaRegarding behind here all the time, I didn't mean to imply that every single poster should've done something. But maybe more could've tried? Maybe those who have more of a relationship with him, or particularly dislike seeing others blocked -- and feel willing and able to take a risk?
--
> I do wish you would stop expecting us to help others ... not get blocked, we can't always do that effectively or even know how to get around doing it civilly.
>
> rskMaybe it would help to discuss what might be effective and civil ways to help someone avoid a block? I made one suggestion:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20090529/msgs/905410.html
Anybody else?
> I chose to ignore what Verne posted to me, which must put me as part of the community that didn't intervene. ... I guess if this situation occurs again I will risk a PBC and ask directly for an apology or retraction of the statement which would be an intervention.
>
> PoetFYI, I consider not retaliating to be an intervention. Not to imply that you wanted to...
But asking for an apology or retraction could be even more helpful. What about posting an example request? You have plenty of civility buddies here!
--
> I would fear, however, that my best efforts might lead to nothing positive, but would potentially open me up to attack, simply for the attempt. Sometimes when one is trying to get a cat out of a tree one gets a faceful of cat!
>
> I guess I need to keep reminding myself that I work with tigers every week and have a houseful of cats. Surely I can deal with a faceful of cat every now and then. :)
>
> Seldom.I can see how there may be anxiety about stepping in. If a poster's been uncivil to someone else, they maybe uncivil to you, too.
Still, if posters approach the cat carefully, each in their own way, and the cat recognizes some of them, and sees how high it is, it may be possible to coax it down.
This is a thoughtful and intelligent group. I have confidence in your ability to find ways to be supportive. Though of course you won't succeed every time. As a last resort:
> The civility guidelines are meant to keep those incidents at a minimum.
>
> DinahWhich might be like the fire department going up into the tree and taking the cat to the pound.
--
> As I see it, the block is too help the person or persons hurt by the block, and to help the blockee not escalate something. How exactly does blocking someone for 52 weeks help us here at babble. And how would you ever expect someone would come back after that when they have to learn to deal without the support of Babble for a year and therefore probably doesn't want to be here anymore.
>
> rskBlocks also help Babble by keeping it more civil. I don't necessarily expect someone to come back afterwards. Though they're welcome to. And sometimes they do. What I'd prefer is for them not to be blocked in the first place.
--
> I wonder what Dr. Bob thinks an apology would do, if posting behavior does not change. I have been taught that an apology consists of regret, taking responsibility, and making amends (which could include taking care that it doesn't happen again). An apology with the first two but without the third doesn't seem like a good way to promote civility.
Well, it's a start. One step at a time.
> I think it would be far better to have willingness to abide by site guidelines be the means by which people return
>
> DinahI agree, I'm just not sure how I'd assess willingness. It would be a form of assessing intent, which I try to avoid.
--
> Does it not make sense then that the posters expect Bob to show compassion and empathy for them?
>
> fayeroeIt's understandable. But it makes more sense for posters to expect compassion and empathy from other posters.
--
> Is it possible for you to more encouraging and less blaming in your introduction of this idea?
>
> wouldn't it be equally valid (and perhaps better received) if you expressed distress that the block happened, support for the second poster, thanks to those who tried to help, and a hope that in the future things will turn out differently and the poster will choose to remain part of this terrific community?
>
> DinahThat's a good point. Thanks for expressing that better. It's more positive to look forward than back.
--
> I see what I think are empty apologies from Bob. And , of course, I also see a refusal by Bob to consider anything that any of us say about the blocks.
>
> fayeroe> I am unsure as to what the criteria that you use to determine if an apology is empty.
> As to a refusal to consider, my undersyanding of what it means to consider something may be different than yours. Could you post here how you determine if one refuses to consider?
>
> Lou> No, thanks, Lou.
>
> fayeroeIn this case, Lou took a risk and approached the cat. And the cat was civil, but stayed in the tree. It would distress me to have to take the cat back to the pound. Does anybody else feel willing and able to help the cat?
Lou, thank you for trying to help. Fayeroe, thank you for being civil to Lou. Whatever happens, I hope you choose to remain part of this terrific, though sometimes stormy, community.
--
> I think a mental health support board is a place where you can go and expect to have an environment where you can feel reasonably safe to post private and personal thoughts.
>
> It may be that my values are out of step with reality or the wishes of the majority here. Perhaps Babble has moved on, and I haven't.
>
> DinahThat's my goal, too. But it's not always clear to me how to get there. I'm adjusting the course I'm taking. I know change can be disruptive. Thank you all for your patience.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:13:22
In reply to Re: trying to get a cat out of a tree, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 11:52:49
> But asking for an apology or retraction could be even more helpful. What about posting an example request? You have plenty of civility buddies here!
>
> --To me, this is encouraging posters to tolerate incivility towards them, and applying subtle pressure on them to do so. This is against my value system, although I recognize it is not against your value system and may in fact better reflect the value system of Babble as it currently is.
I know the pressure, subtle and overt, applied by peers and by authority figures for the innocent to work things out with the uncivil. I find that I cannot support that in any way shape or form. The innocent should not have to deal with incivility and should not, IMO, be pressured into doing so by you or by other posters.
> That's my goal, too. But it's not always clear to me how to get there. I'm adjusting the course I'm taking. I know change can be disruptive. Thank you all for your patience.
I have tried to roll with the punches as far as your course adjustments. But there are some course adjustments I am unable to take while maintaining my own self respect in terms of my values.
This is one of those times. If this is what's best for babble, I respect that, but I can't personally be part of it.
I understand the value of asking posters to work things out between themselves in cases of squabbles or disagreements. But not in cases like this.
If this is the course that Babble needs, then it needs a deputy who is on board with the change.
Posted by Phillipa on July 9, 2009, at 12:30:23
In reply to Lou's request-refucon » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2009, at 21:50:38
Fayroe also not clear on your post. Could you word it different or clarify what you mean. Thanks Phillipa
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 15:21:11
In reply to Re: trying to get a cat out of a tree, posted by Dinah on July 9, 2009, at 12:13:22
> > > I guess if this situation occurs again I will risk a PBC and ask directly for an apology or retraction of the statement which would be an intervention.
> >
> > asking for an apology or retraction could be ... helpful. What about posting an example request?
>
> To me, this is encouraging posters to tolerate incivility towards them, and applying subtle pressure on them to do so.I did encourage Poet to explore her plan. It wasn't my plan. But I guess encouragement could be experienced as pressure. Poet, please feel free not to post an example request.
Incivility in some form is probably inevitable. Even if we approved messages before they were posted, we might consider something civil and others might not. So the question is how to respond. Wouldn't ignoring it actually be more like tolerating it?
> I know the pressure, subtle and overt, applied by peers and by authority figures for the innocent to work things out with the uncivil. I find that I cannot support that in any way shape or form.
>
> I understand the value of asking posters to work things out between themselves in cases of squabbles or disagreements. But not in cases like this.How are cases like this different? Or, when should everyone just wait for the fire department? Being able to work things out with someone who's uncivil could be a useful skill to develop.
Bob
Posted by Timne on July 9, 2009, at 15:35:14
In reply to Re: trying to get a cat out of a tree, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 15:21:11
> Incivility in some form is probably inevitable. Even if we approved messages before they were posted, we might consider something civil and others might not. So the question is how to respond. Wouldn't ignoring it actually be more like tolerating it?
>
> BobCould that be formally classified as a false dilemma? Are there other options, such as deleting it?
I'm reminded of the old practice of putting heads on pikes to remind newcomers not to do things that might result in their head being left on a pike. An image comes to mind of a front yard along a busy sidewalk, covered in dog droppings and maybe copies of citations -- or pooper-scoop bags, left there as the owners way of telling dog owners not to let their dogs act that way.
If poop-bags are left in a dog park where there are not stools left lying around, the hint might strongly compel dog owners to use the bags. If the bags are left in a park littered with dung, broken windows theory suggests other dog owners will ignore the bags and leave their dog's leavings unattended.
Broken windows theory does not involve leaving windows broken and placing court records of convicted vandals alongside broken windows. Broken windows theory says keep a clean house and guests will start to clean up after themselves.
Posted by Sigismund on July 9, 2009, at 16:50:07
In reply to Re: trying to get a cat out of a tree, posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 11:52:49
>Lou took a risk and approached the cat. And the cat was civil, but stayed in the tree. It would distress me to have to take the cat back to the pound. Does anybody else feel willing and able to help the cat?
Is Fayeroe in danger of being taken off to the pound?
Just trying to keep up here.
Posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2009, at 17:06:15
In reply to Re: trying to get a cat out of a tree, posted by Sigismund on July 9, 2009, at 16:50:07
Posted by 10derHeart on July 9, 2009, at 17:15:18
In reply to Lou's request-refucon » fayeroe, posted by Lou Pilder on July 7, 2009, at 21:50:38
well, wait...I can see it is possible for Dr. Bob to feel accused or put down by use of the phrase:
"empty apologies." I can see that. If my apologies were described that way, I might feel hurt. But maybe he could just say so, to Pat, and ask for a rephrase? Or maybe that's not even the phrase? Or the reason behind the pound comment? Dr. Bob lets an awful lot "go" when it's written about him personally, in the interst of allowing posters to vent and to communicate with him - or something like that (I'm expressiong that rationale very badly) So when it may be about him, I just observe, as I have not really known or understood where he draws his boundaries.
I'm a pretty big proponent of plain language. I am fairly easily confused. I dunno. Maybe he will return to explain.
*posting as a poster. Don't get involved administratively on threads where Dr. Bob is posting
Posted by Dr. Bob on July 9, 2009, at 17:45:18
In reply to Re: trying to get a cat out of a tree, posted by Sigismund on July 9, 2009, at 16:50:07
> Is Fayeroe in danger of being taken off to the pound?
> Just trying to keep up here.Yes. Sorry if I tried to cover too much in that post,
Bob
--
> > I see what I think are empty apologies from Bob. And , of course, I also see a refusal by Bob to consider anything that any of us say about the blocks.
> >
> > fayeroe
>
> > I am unsure as to what the criteria that you use to determine if an apology is empty.
> > As to a refusal to consider, my undersyanding of what it means to consider something may be different than yours. Could you post here how you determine if one refuses to consider?
> >
> > Lou
>
> > No, thanks, Lou.
> >
> > fayeroe
>
> In this case, Lou took a risk and approached the cat. And the cat was civil, but stayed in the tree. It would distress me to have to take the cat back to the pound. Does anybody else feel willing and able to help the cat?
>
> Lou, thank you for trying to help. Fayeroe, thank you for being civil to Lou. Whatever happens, I hope you choose to remain part of this terrific, though sometimes stormy, community.
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.