![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 18 to 42 of 57. Go back in thread:
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 12:52:34
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 12:28:27
Lou,
If I am to understand you correctly, you don't understand why I feel hurt at posts, which were basically about me, but were directed to Dr Bob.. so, if a post isn't *directed* at me, you don't understand why I could feel hurt.
Using this reckoning, could you explain why a post, on a board you can't post to (PB2000), posted to people there, that was about me and my relationship with my husband, and didn't even mention you, could cause you hurt.
You see I've got confused.. sorry.
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:18:48
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
You wrote about your hurting from my requests to Dr. Hsiung to make a determination about some of your recent posts, some of which were directed to me by you.
Well, your posts directed by you to me have had a dramatic impact on me. And if we can discuss your hurting to make it a happier place, could we not also discuss my hurting? Your post about,[...don't tell me, I was being antisemitic by being upset with my husband because my husband has a jewish great aunt...]is causing me great distress. I feel that since I have not had a clear reply from Dr. Hsiung about the acceptability or not here for that statement by you, that it could mean that there is the potential for others to think that he endorses the statement to be allowed to be posted as being acceptable. You see, Dr. Hsing's reply to me recently was that he told you to be civil because you wrote to me after I used the feature to you not ot post to me. When I asked him to clarify that, he wrote that he may choose one post in a group of posts. But that does not , to me, tell me if he is saying that your other post in the group of posts are acceptable or not. You have written that it is your impression that since no PBC was given to you that thearfor the post(s)is/are acceptable. I asked a language expert on this and my answer that I received was that it could mean that the post that I requested for a determination is also {not} acceptable. So we have you thinking that no PBC means acceptability and another thinking that it is not acceptable eventhough t DR. Hsing wrote that some other post was not acceptable. That is why I am requesting that Dr. Hsiung now settle this unsettled question.
But could you consider my feelings about how I feel when I read that post of yours that you directed to me?
To me, this post by you about the jewish great aunt , by being a jew that had his relatives exterminated by the Nazis, reminds me of the horrors of Nazism. The jewish great aunt part in particular, because the nazis made it a crime punishable by death to be a jew. And to be a jew could mean that a relative of yours was a jew even if you were not a practicing jew. The nazis considered a jew to be a race, not a relgion and it was the race of jews that they wanted to exterminate. The nazis considered themelves to be the {master race}. One and one-half jewish children were murdered by the nazis because they had genetic jewishness. Their mother's sister or grandmother's sister that was jewish could have been jewish. They were childrem of jewish decent. The nazis considered it a crime to be of jewish decent punishable by death. This statement by you has caused me to see psychiatric help for I do not know how I can deal with it by being allowed to be posted on a mental health forum without me knowing if the moderator, DR. Hsiung, endorses it or not.
Your statement that you would say that you believe that I am evil but you won't, is causing me much distress also. I am not evil. And I also want a happier place where posters do not direct these type of statements, if they are considered by the forun to be not acceptable, to another poster with the thought that they think because the moderator, Dr. Hsiung, since he has not responded dirsctly and spacifacally to my request to determine the acceptability of those posts by you in question mean to you ,at least, since you belivethat they are acceptable because no PCB was given to them, that they are acceptable here in relation to the guidlines of the forum.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:48
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:18:48
That post to you was in anger Lou, and I believe I admitted that.
Could you please explain though, how the original post, posted by me on PB2000 caused you hurt. Thats what I don't understand. If you don't wish to answer, thats fine, but could you tell me that.
Thankyou,
Nikki
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:42:26
In reply to Lou's reply to Sad sara » Sad sara, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 10:46:53
But do you mean that it doesn't matter that she got hurt from your postings because they were no meant for her, they were still about her posts?
I think the issue should conentrate on not hurting other peoples feelings... whether you are doing it by following rules or not, don't you think too? If you can avoid someone elses feeling by overlooking minor violations on the law, isn't that better? Or if you still wants to proceed with the law, do in such a subtle way the the person it matters does not get hurt? I think for example it could be possible to ask dr. Bob whether a post is violating the rules in such a way that the person that might be violating the rules does not get hurt... maybe Nikki would have gotten less hurt if you described what you thought was wrong with her post in your first complaint, or maybe considering e-mailing the matter to dr. Bob first just because this time the person you suspected violating the rules was someone who was a bit 'instable' mentally... I know that you don't have to do it that way according to the rules, but just maybe in some cases even when you follow the rules you can hurt someone...
This is very messy, I am sorry. I am just trying to point out that maybe it would be just as good if the rule was 'please try not to hurt someone whether you are following the rules or not'. I don't think you were deliberately hurting this girl, but I don't think she was deliberately violating any rule either....
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:52:08
In reply to Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:18:48
'This statement by you has caused me to see psychiatric help for I do not know how I can deal with it by being allowed to be posted on a mental health forum without me knowing if the moderator, DR. Hsiung, endorses it or not'.
But what I see here Lou, is that she said something that made you seek a counselour, but according to the posts from Nikki, also your post hurt her so much that she had to bring it up with her therapist.... isn't that the same thing? Or doesn't it count since she already had a therapist?
Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
In reply to Re: Lou offers some clarification » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 9:27:00
NikkiT2,
You have expressed your hurting in relation to me requesting determinations from the moderator, Dr. Hsiung.And I think that my hurtings are just as important as yours. Your posts directed to me about the jewish great aunt and "evil" are hurting me . Yousay that if a post that does not have a PCB is acceptable means that these posts that have not had a PBC to you by Dr. Hsiung could also have the [potential for some others here on the forum to think that they are acceptable.
The posts are reminding me of the horrors of the nazi holocaust because I did have a jewish great aunt murdered by the nazis becauseshe was a jew. And I have many friends that are survivors of the extermination camps as children. I went to school with them. I lived in the same neighborhood as them. I taught with a man who was born in the camps. I had a friend that was tossed over the barbed wire as a child of the death camp and smuggled out of Germany. He was 4 years old at the time and he told of the horrors that he witnessed. Do I have to be on a mental health board that allows you to poat to me what you have posted and the moderstor writes something to my request that could mean one thing to you as being acceptable and another thing to another as being not acceptable? Dr. Hsing's reply to me about your posts in question does not stop the hurt to me by your post to me that reminds me of the horrors of nazism. I had a jewish great aunt that was murdered and her family with her.
The following link it what your post has caused me to be reminded of. Do not anyone click on this link if you do not want see photos of the horrors of nazism.
Lou
http://www.annefrank.dk/albums13/hitler2.htm
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:59:55
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
> NikkiT2,
> You have expressed your hurting in relation to me requesting determinations from the moderator, Dr. Hsiung.And I think that my hurtings are just as important as yours. Your posts directed to me about the jewish great aunt and "evil" are hurting me . Yousay that if a post that does not have a PCB is acceptable means that these posts that have not had a PBC to you by Dr. Hsiung could also have the [potential for some others here on the forum to think that they are acceptable.
> The posts are reminding me of the horrors of the nazi holocaust because I did have a jewish great aunt murdered by the nazis becauseshe was a jew. And I have many friends that are survivors of the extermination camps as children. I went to school with them. I lived in the same neighborhood as them. I taught with a man who was born in the camps. I had a friend that was tossed over the barbed wire as a child of the death camp and smuggled out of Germany. He was 4 years old at the time and he told of the horrors that he witnessed. Do I have to be on a mental health board that allows you to poat to me what you have posted and the moderstor writes something to my request that could mean one thing to you as being acceptable and another thing to another as being not acceptable? Dr. Hsing's reply to me about your posts in question does not stop the hurt to me by your post to me that reminds me of the horrors of nazism. I had a jewish great aunt that was murdered and her family with her.
> The following link it what your post has caused me to be reminded of. Do not anyone click on this link if you do not want see photos of the horrors of nazism.
> Lou
> http://www.annefrank.dk/albums13/hitler2.htm
I don't think Nikki means that your hurting means less, just as hurting her is just as bad as hurting you... not less, not more. Considering this being a board for all people that suffers from mental disease, I think it is important that both people with PTSD problems AND depressive people should be equally protected from hurting, but maybe you disagree?
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 14:12:36
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
This was the post I was referring to, which predates the others
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/2000/20040626/msgs/403804.html
Nikki
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:23:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 13:59:55
Ss,
You wrote,[...both... should be equally protected from hurting...].
I agree. I am not saying that it is NikkiT2's intentions to hurt me, for I can not know someone's intentions. And it is also not my intention to hurt anyone, including NikkiT2
But it is my great hope that understanding here could see that I am only wanting a determination made by Dr. Hsiung as to the acceptability or not of these two posts directed to me by NikkiT2. NikkiT2 says that as long as there is not a PBC to the post, then she considers it to be acceptable. Well, if you look at the two posts in question, there are no PCBs associated directly with the posts and how would a reader here know by looking at the posts that they were not acceptable ?If Dr. Hsiung could make that very clear, so that there is no doubt that those two posts in question are not acceptable, or even to be acceptable, then I believe that we could stop all of this paricular discussion and go on.
Lou
Posted by Miss Honeychurch on November 5, 2004, at 14:25:09
In reply to Dr-Bob... Is this a good idea?, posted by 64bowtie on November 5, 2004, at 7:52:09
Whatever happened to Rod's original question? It seems pretty important to me.
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
In reply to Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 13:53:22
I'm sorry to butt in here, but it seems to me that Nikki has extended an olive branch here and I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
I understand fully the hurt you feel and the images you see. When I was in Poland the first time, the only thing I really, really wanted to do was visit Auschwitz/Birknau. I felt it was a duty of mine to witness it. Nothing can truly explain the impact that had on me, but the closest I can come to it is to say I felt a pure murderous rage.
But is it really important for Dr. Bob to make a determination on it? Nikki has already said she posted what she did out of anger and (I believe) apologized. Dr. Bob doesn't usually even get involved when that happens.
So, I guess what's left is for you to understand what it is that hurt her about the first post? I can understand that. She was very upset when she wrote it, was talking as if she had no life to live, revealing her true emotions to the world, and the next thing she knows there is a request for the post to be examined for civility. I think if I were in the same position I would be hurt, too, and I don't hurt easily. If not hurt, I would certainly be thinking there was always someone looking over my shoulder.
But still, the olive branch.
Mel <speaking as a friend>
ps to Nikki: If I am correct (good chance I'm not - I seem to be missing the mark lately) the part he was noticing was the use of the word 'b*st*rd' and 'h*ll.' So, if that is true, and if Lou really wanted to know if that was acceptable in the context that it was used, could you think of a way to word it that wouldn't be hurtful??
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:52:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 13:34:48
NikkiT2,
You wrote that you posted in anger. I do not consider that posts could be determined as acceptable , if they are not acceptable, because someone posted it in anger. My request for a determination was made as to what could be seen, not what the feelings of the poster was behind the writing of the post.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:55:27
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2, posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 14:12:36
Niki T2,
The posts in question here are the ones you posted directly to me. The post that you are referring to was not posted diectly to me and was determined to another poster, pegasus, that the post was acceptable.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 15:05:27
In reply to Re: Hey Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
AM,
I appreciate your post to me. I think that you see things here that I also see.
But the aspect of this discussion that you point outin relation to a dtermination, I feel is warrented because when someone reads the post in and of itself, one could have the potential to think that the forum endorses it becaus ether is no notation from Dr. Hsiung spaciffically abou the post as to whether it is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum. If there was a determination that others could know, not having to go into another thread to find it out,or wonder what Dt. Hsing means by writing that anither post is uncivil, then it could be clear to others. That is what I am asking for. Do you think that that is too much to ask here?
Lou
Lou
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 15:29:39
In reply to Lou's reply to Sad sara » Sad Sara, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:23:40
> Ss,
> You wrote,[...both... should be equally protected from hurting...].
> I agree. I am not saying that it is NikkiT2's intentions to hurt me, for I can not know someone's intentions. And it is also not my intention to hurt anyone, including NikkiT2
> But it is my great hope that understanding here could see that I am only wanting a determination made by Dr. Hsiung as to the acceptability or not of these two posts directed to me by NikkiT2. NikkiT2 says that as long as there is not a PBC to the post, then she considers it to be acceptable. Well, if you look at the two posts in question, there are no PCBs associated directly with the posts and how would a reader here know by looking at the posts that they were not acceptable ?If Dr. Hsiung could make that very clear, so that there is no doubt that those two posts in question are not acceptable, or even to be acceptable, then I believe that we could stop all of this paricular discussion and go on.
> Lou
>
>Dear you
I have understood what you are trying tosay, it's just that to me it seems like you and Nikki are talking about two different things, both of them equally important. While Nikki is trying to point out why she felt hurt, you are more trying to point out what you did and why you did it... am I wrong? But this is not my discussion so I will leave it at that. I believe Nikki to be perfectly capable of explaining herself and I have been intruding way too much already. Sorry.
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 15:38:50
In reply to Re: Hey Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
AM,
You wrote that you belive that NikkiT2 [...has posted to me out of anger and (I believe) aplogised ...]. Could you point out the URL of what you believe to be an apology from NikkiT2 to me about writing the post in anger? There are so many postts that I have not fully read up with yet and if there is one that writes that, I would be appreciative if you could direct that to me.
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on November 5, 2004, at 15:40:48
In reply to Re: Lou's reply yo NIkkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:55:27
Are you refusing to answer why you were hurt by the original post?? I am asking you whether you understand why I was so hurt by your posting that particular post for clarification, and thus why I posted to you in anger?
Thankyou
Posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 15:53:40
In reply to Lou's reply to Auntie Mel » AuntieMel, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 15:38:50
I don't know for sure there was a formal apology and I don't have time to go looking for it right now (I'm working on a hot project at work), but in my mind (for what *that* is worth) just stating that it was in anger is an implied apology.
At least I would take it that way if someone said it to me. :)
Posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 16:02:13
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Sad sara, posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 15:29:39
You wrote,[...am I wrong?...].
If we look at what is happening here, perhaps you can make your own decision about that.
There are several posts in question by NikkiT2 that I have requested for a determination. One is not directly posted to me and that has been posted by Dr. Hsiung to another poster to be acceptable here. The others in question are posts by NikkiT2 directed to me.
I have asked Dr. Hsiung to clarify his most recent reply to me as to if his reply to me means that the posts directed to me by NikkiT2 are or are not acceptable here. NikkiT2 writes that if there is not a PBC for the post, then she thinks that the absence of the PBC constitutes the post being acceptable. It is my concern here that if she thinks that the absence of a PCB could mean that the posts are acceptable, then I believe that the potential is there for others to also think that the posts are acceptable.
Dr. Hsiung in his reply to me concerning my requests about the two posts by NikkiT2 that are directed to me has been asnswered by him to me in a way that one person could think that the posts in question are acceptable and another person could think that he is saying that they are not acceptable. All of this discussion has the potential to be settled by me and NikkiT2 if Dr. Hsiung could write to me that the two posts are either acceptable or not, or if there is a split in the two. When I know that, then this discussion could probably end.
I have pointed out that since she states about her hurt that a discussion between us could contain about my hurt equally. I feel that it is only fair for both of us in a discussion to have equality. I do not think that we are talking about two different things, but are in the innitial attempt at reconcilliation . The innitial attempt could be such that clarifications need to be given and I am always amicable to clarify. If there something that I missed in my resply to you here and if so, I would be amical to answere any things about what you would like to know.
Lou
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 16:03:15
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to NikkiT2 » NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on November 5, 2004, at 14:52:40
"You wrote that you posted in anger. I do not consider that posts could be determined as acceptable , if they are not acceptable, because someone posted it in anger. My request for a determination was made as to what could be seen, not what the feelings of the poster was behind the writing of the post."
That is true, but isn't it also important to distinguish, at least to a certain degree, the difference between hurting someone out of intention of being mean and the hurting of someone as a result of anger (also because that anger was a result from feeling that you put her down when refering to her post as possibly not acceptable)?
Yes, it is important not to hurt each other, but it should also be possible to do mistakes without it getting a big thing out of it. It looks to me that this whole discussion about whos right and whos wrong in this case is brought fairly out of proportions considering the subject, but thats my personal opinion. People are different, we have different personalities and we behave differently accordinlgy. Some people get eaily hurt, some people hurt easily others, some people work very hard not to hurt others.
But is it really possible to NEVER hurt anyone with what you write/say? Is it possible, considering that human beings are not perfect creatures, and that we all are so different? I think it is dangerous if we allow ourself to get hurt, without even considering the intention behind what was said, simply because I do think intention makes a difference, and that situational factors matter.
Situational factors is actually proved to be more valid than personalities, meaning that in certain situations some people might hurt someone in a burst of anger, or a moment of thoughtlessness, which they normally wouldn't do. I think it is important for social beings to be able to distinguish between intentions, and try to adjust their own feelings accordingly, simply because thats a lot easier than teaching everyone to behave in such a way that they will never step on someones feelings. If you manage to sort out your own feelings based on the intention of the poster, you would be a lot less vulnerable to the "diversities" in human that is not are not always a good thing in all situations, but that are making the world more varied and interesting (well, at least I think that it/s good that we are all so different, but some would maybe feel it safer with less varety in the world).
I don't know if anything I have said is in any way refering to how this is for you, I'm just trying to figure out this from a general idea.
I think that if you exclude intentions and situational factors when following rules, you leave little left for common sense and individuality, and the danger is that you might get a place where people don't dare opening up and tell about their emotions and experiences... people with mental problems are not always reasonable and logical simply because they are in a very tough situation and may not think straight. Feelings might take over the control, or misunderstandings might happen more often.... but I think the intention behind is to protect yourself, and not to be mean.... just as you want to protect yourself against the terrible thoughts that comes for you concerning holocaust.
By making intentions making a difference for whether you feel hurt or not, you are getting more control over protecting yourself. Variations in expressing yourself, individuality and a certain "hight under the roof" of what can be accepted and not will then exist... so that people are allowed to make small mistakes WITHOUT necessarily hurting someone else might be important on a board where people have mental problems and might be in need of posting their emotions freely. Maybe ESPESCIALLY on a board that is such a good and supportive place for people with mental problems. Yes, it is possible to post freely without hurting someone else, but what I try to say i sthat accidents can happen, and maybe intentions then should be considered? Otherwise it seems to become a witch hunt for details, in one way or the other...
I am a bit afraid that if we start picking on every little detail that might possibly be a violation againts rules, that might become more important than what people are actually writing in their posts (about their mental problems, for example). And what would then be the point of a board like this? Training in social behavious? Yes, many people need training in social behaviour, but maybe this just isn't the best place (in general, I do NOT have anyone special in mind, please notice that)?
Just some of my thoughts.
Posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 16:58:08
In reply to Re: Hey Lou » Lou Pilder, posted by AuntieMel on November 5, 2004, at 14:51:02
> Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
>
> Sad Sara> I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
>
> I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
>
> Mel <speaking as a friend>I agree, might it be possible to let go of the past and focus on moving forward? Acknowledge that the other feels hurt, apologize for having played a role, and try not to repeat the past? Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 17:37:33
In reply to Re: moving forward » Lou Pilder » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 16:58:08
And of course it's up to NIkkiT2
There is quite a bit of history here,
and ignoring and moving on hasn't worked for her in the past. I think by working through this with Lou she's doing an admirable honourable thing, more than I could do for sure, and In my opinion it's the only way to try and prevent this painful situation from happening again.
I don't think she should be pushed to forgive and forget unless that's the decision she's come to herself.
I don't want to lose Nikki and I'm afraid that's what would happen if history repeats itself, and I couldn't say that I would blame her.
Posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 18:30:39
In reply to Just my obligatory, contrary 2 cents » Dr. Bob, posted by Gabbix2 on November 5, 2004, at 17:37:33
I'm sorry if it sounded like I was speaking for you, I know I don't know you that well, so I didn't mean for it to come across that way if it did. I admire what you are doing, I know if I were in your situation I don't think I could.
Posted by Sad Sara on November 5, 2004, at 18:52:10
In reply to Re: Dr-Bob... Is this a good idea?, posted by Miss Honeychurch on November 5, 2004, at 14:25:09
> Whatever happened to Rod's original question? It seems pretty important to me.
Maybe, since dr. Bob doesn't answer this one, he would like Rod to explain what he thinks is a bad idea about it? I do see why it can be a bad idea though, but I also think that Nikki is a grown up person that can judge for herself whether she wants to respond or not... and if the offer is sincere and well meant (I can't see that it's not) maybe Nikki would appreciate getting it even if she choose not to answer?
Posted by verne on November 5, 2004, at 19:10:19
In reply to Re: moving forward » Lou Pilder » NikkiT2, posted by Dr. Bob on November 5, 2004, at 16:58:08
> > Isn't it just possible to say that you both have hurt each other and agree on that that isn't acceptable?
> >
> > Sad Sara
>
> > I think it would be wonderful!! for both of you - and the entire board - if the two of you could kiss and make up.
> >
> > I'm writing as a friend, but one that is sad about the entire misunderstanding.
> >
> > Mel <speaking as a friend>
>
> I agree, might it be possible to let go of the past and focus on moving forward? Acknowledge that the other feels hurt, apologize for having played a role, and try not to repeat the past? Thanks,
>
> BobThis is just a polite way of telling Nikki to "get over it" - a kind of peace at ANY cost that disregards her welfare and leaves unanswered the simple question: why her original post was singled out in the first place.
This is also "pressuring" her - another thing I thought wasn't allowed.
Civility sure changes depending on the viewpoint. Mary Bowers where are you?
verne
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.