![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 17 to 41 of 41. Go back in thread:
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 7:48:48
In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 0:53:02
Friends,
It is written here,[...Yes,it is just (the policy here that says that deputies do not have to intervene)...]
There is a test to determine if a policy is just or not. Some of the tests are:
A.is the policy free from favoritism?
B is the policy free from a self-interest or bias or deception?
C. does the policy disregard the principles of justice?
D. does the policy conform with justice?
E. does the policy allow unjust accusations to stand?
If you would like to see the posts here that you could use to make your own determinatin as to if the policy in question here is {just} , I could email with you if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 8:37:03
In reply to Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Lou Pilder on October 11, 2006, at 9:22:33
> ...if you could write what rational you use as an authority to write that your policy here to allow the deputies to leave statements unsanctioned by not intervening that IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on your forum...
maybe it is because his honest opinion is that the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on this forum.
maybe it is because he would prefer the deputies to do nothing when they are unsure what to do rather than act on impulse and later come to regret what they have done.
maybe because he can't *make* them interveane anways.
> Let us say that ther is a volunteer fire department and someone calls to report a fire in their house. And let's say that the person that hears the request says that they are unwilling to come to their house to do what they can to put out the fire. The caller then says that if they do not do what they can, then there could be great damage from the fire. The fire department volunteer then says that they have been given a policy that says that they do not have to intervene and that they will leave the fire alone. The caller then says, "But the fire could destroy the house and possibly destroy others also." The volunteer then says to the caller, " I choose not to respond", and hangs up.
but then you need to add in the point that the caller calls up the fire department... how many times per week / month / year? and with most of the callouts the volounteers go out to see the house only to say that in their honest opinion there is no fire. it would probably be a full time job to keep up with your requests for determinations and removals and clarifications, Lou.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 8:55:56
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 8:37:03
Alexandra,
You wrote,[...you need to add,...Lou...]and,[...{maybe}...the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on the forum...]
Well, if {maybe} they do not, then could it also be that {maybe } they could?
If you or anyone else would like to see the posts in question here, you could email me if you like and then you could possibly see some posts that you may not have seen before and perhaps revise your determination as to if the statements in question do or do not have the potential to foster defmation toward Jews and/or me as Jew on the forum.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 9:41:45
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung » Lou Pilder, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 8:37:03
to add a bit more to your very good post, in NM if you called in a false alarm you were cited. for your second false alarm, you were fined $500. the third time you called in a false alarm, you were removed as a member of the association and given your membership fee back.when you joined the fire protection society you signed a contract to that effect.
for the rest of us,
there is a story, which i'm sure you've heard, of the boy who cried "wolf" too many times and a deaf ear was turned to his pleas.and for another example from New Mexico, we had a ditch irritagation system (water ran down from the mountains) and we were well aware of "give water an inch and it will take a foot".......when you're irrigating an orchard and three gardens, that is a very good thing and you work it to your advantage. if you were trying to irrigate the entire village, it would be impossible to keep up with.
okay, i'm out of New Mexico examples for this year. :-)
Posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:46:24
In reply to Lou's reply to Alexandra- » alexandra_k, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 8:55:56
> You wrote,[...you need to add,...Lou...]and,[...{maybe}...the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on the forum...]
uh...
you said:
>> ...if you could write what rational you use as an authority to write that your policy here to allow the deputies to leave statements unsanctioned by not intervening that IMO have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and me as a Jew on your forum...
and I said:
> maybe it is because his honest opinion is that the statement does not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews and you as a Jew on this forum.
i was trying to say why it might be the case that Bob doesn't sanction those posts. i know that you think that there is the potential... but you see that potential a lot...
How many times do you think volounteer firefighters should go to a callout when the caller is frequent and where most often the volounteer firefighters judge that there is no fire?
Posted by Toph on October 12, 2006, at 10:05:40
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 9:41:45
For whatever reason your New Mexico examples make me think of "Neil Young", who wisely said,
"And there ain't nothin' like a friend
Who can tell you you're just pissin' in the wind."So to speak.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 10:06:21
In reply to Re: Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 0:53:02
Friends,
It is written here,[...It is not saying a problem will be *ignored*. It is saying that x and y don't have to deal with it, but that z will...]
I have read the FAQ regarding the policy in question here and can not find where it says that if z is the owner/moderator here, that he >will< (deal with it) in the same time frame as the deputy as being then and not, let's say, a week or two later.
If the policy does have that in it, that could make a huge difference, but I can not find a statement in that policy that says that z (will) deal with it in the same time frame as the deputy.
This could bring up some aspects of this policy here. For instance, the polcy has a title,[...Why do you have depuuty administrators? What do they do?...]
The function of the deputies is then defined as;
A. they keep an eye on what's going on
B. they intervene by sanctioning in 3 ways
And an impotant aspect IMO of this polcy is that it is stated,[...their actions are subject to review by the owner/moderator {and could be reversed}.
So by the nature of the defining of the functions and procedures of the deputies, it is plainly visible that they can use their discretion, and that if they are wrong, then the owner/moderator could could reverse their sanction.
The function of the deputy administrators is to keep an eye on what's going on and sanction uncivil statements in one of 3 ways as listed in the FAQ. By leaving a statement that IMO has the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings unsanctioned, there could be that others could have the potential to think that the statements are civil during the time that the deputies are posting without sanctioning the statment in question, yet leaving the statement in question unsanctioned and the owner/moderator is in a place where he does not have consistant internet access that could keep him from posting for a week or more. The time that it could take for z to intercede, if z is the owner/moderator, could be weeks, and then could not z also let the statement stand? I think that this could be prevented by the deputy sanctioning the post on the basis as to if the statement in question has the potential to lead Jews to feel accused or put down as per the past practice where it has already been determined that the statemebnt in question is uncivil. Then letting z reverse the sanction if they are wrong.
If anyone would like to email with me to see the posts in question where the issue as to if they are civil or not had already been determinad in the past practice, you could email me if you like at
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 10:35:01
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Alexandra-, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:46:24
Friends,
It is written here,[...I was trying to say why it might be the case that (Dr. Hsiung) does not sanction those posts (maybe his opinion is that the statements do not have the potential to foster defamation toward Jews.. on the forum)...you think that there is the potential but [>you see that potential a lot<]...].
What determines as to if there is the potential or not here for a statement to lead Jews to feel accused or put down is already defined here and by the past practice.
If anyone would like to see the posts in question and make your own determination as to if the potential is there or not for the statements in question to foster defmation toward Jews and me as a Jew on the forum, if they remain unsanctioned, as in the same manner as , let's say, when a member uses the donkey word is sanctioned, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 10:48:47
In reply to Re: Lou's reminder to Dr. Hsiung, posted by Toph on October 12, 2006, at 10:05:40
> For whatever reason your New Mexico examples make me think of "Neil Young", who wisely said,
> "And there ain't nothin' like a friend
> Who can tell you you're just pissin' in the wind."
>
> So to speak.i've been known to tell friends that a time or two......but never had the response, and honor, of being compared to Neil Young.....thanks, Toph........:-) have been compared to Jerry Jeff Walker though.......:-)
>
Posted by gardenergirl on October 12, 2006, at 11:57:32
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Alexandra-, posted by alexandra_k on October 12, 2006, at 9:46:24
> How many times do you think volounteer firefighters should go to a callout when the caller is frequent and where most often the volounteer firefighters judge that there is no fire?Also, how much of the volunteer firefighter's time is taken up by attending to these calls when perhaps someone else's home is actually on fire? Why should any volunteer firefighter spend more than 75 percent of their time devoted to attending to the perceived needs of one homeowner and then dividing the other 25 percent of their available time among the remaining hundreds or thousands? Is that an appropriate use of resources? Is that fair and just? Is one person's concern about fire more valid or important than others' fires?
You might also factor in that how the volunteer is treated by the person making the frequent calls could affect the responsiveness of the volunteer, since they are human beings, afterall. Both parties saying "please" and "thank you", listening actively and with respect, respecting boundaries and limitations, and staying focused on the current problem go a long way towards working out differences and arriving at an appropriate solution.
gg
Posted by zazenducky on October 12, 2006, at 12:57:01
In reply to Multiple calls for help, posted by gardenergirl on October 12, 2006, at 11:57:32
The easy solution would be to have more deputies! That should be easy since 3 more are all ready to go. If that's not enough ask for more volunteers. No big deal.
I don't think deputies should react or fail to react because of personal feelings about a poster's communication style!....
Impartiality.... treating everyone fairly and equally......
there's the ticket....more professional I'd say.
I propose Bob add that to the job description :)
>
> Also, how much of the volunteer firefighter's time is taken up by attending to these calls when perhaps someone else's home is actually on fire? Why should any volunteer firefighter spend more than 75 percent of their time devoted to attending to the perceived needs of one homeowner and then dividing the other 25 percent of their available time among the remaining hundreds or thousands? Is that an appropriate use of resources? Is that fair and just? Is one person's concern about fire more valid or important than others' fires?
>
> You might also factor in that how the volunteer is treated by the person making the frequent calls could affect the responsiveness of the volunteer, since they are human beings, afterall. Both parties saying "please" and "thank you", listening actively and with respect, respecting boundaries and limitations, and staying focused on the current problem go a long way towards working out differences and arriving at an appropriate solution.
>
>
>
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 13:56:22
In reply to More deputies and equal treatment is solution!, posted by zazenducky on October 12, 2006, at 12:57:01
Impartiality.... treating everyone fairly and equally......
there's the ticket....more professional I'd say.
I propose Bob add that to the job description :)
I'm not certain how I am going to cover what I want to in one post, but I'm going to try it.Choices about where one lives: when one is the great, great, great, etc. grandchild of a Spaniard who's possession of the land upon which one lives came from Onate coming from Spain and seizing the very village, that one resides in, from the American Indians, there is little or no choice concerning where one will live.
say that by some splashing around in the gene pool that is where you ended up. you are very poor and your education ended at the fourth grade in the schoolhouse that one of your ancestors built more than one hundred years ago.
you have a wife, a grown daughter who had a stroke and she lives on your property also and you have your grandchildren that you and your elderly wife take care of. you live from the SS check that your daughter draws monthly. 8 of you do. you've never considered choosing to live down the river in Rinconada, instead of Velarde, because you can't.
when the neighboring potter decides to burn his trash on a windy day and starts a huge fire, you are very kind when the volunteer women firefighters in your village come to your aid before the volunteer truck arrives from Riconada.
you don't even laugh when the men, from Rinconada, argue over who will hold the hose because you've been such a good neighbor to the women who are now surrounded by flames by your house that you know they will do whatever it takes to save your house and they do.
even after the men in the truck become angry and back up over their tools and break them, you still had faith that your neighbors will continue to use their own tools to fight the fire. your choice was to always be a good neighbor and in turn you have friends who are willing to risk their lives, or at least incur 2nd or 3rd degree burns, because they want to save your small house.
the choice of being a good neighbor, without a chance of moving, in that small village in New Mexico and also being the kind of neighbor that the volunteers responded to, in spite of the dangers that were involved that day could apply to the posters and the moderators here very easily. AND as i said before, there is your choice of whether or not you post here and now i point out that you have the choice of how you "live" here.
IF there are people here who BELIEVE, in their hearts, there should be more moderators and more professionalism, i suggest that the proper thing to do would be to volunteer and start studying up on professionalism and kindness towards ones fellow man.
oh yes, the villager who's house C and I helped save was our "mayor domo"........
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 14:24:24
In reply to More deputies and equal treatment is solution!, posted by zazenducky on October 12, 2006, at 12:57:01
FRiends,
It is written here,[...I don't think that deputies should react... or fail to react....impartiality..there's the ticket...]
Lou's first smiley>>> :-)
Lou
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 14:55:14
In reply to Re: More deputies and equal treatment is solution! » zazenducky, posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 13:56:22
> Impartiality.... treating everyone fairly and equally......
>
> there's the ticket....more professional I'd say.
>
> I propose Bob add that to the job description :)
>
>
> I'm not certain how I am going to cover what I want to in one post, but I'm going to try it.
>
> Choices about where one lives: when one is the great, great, great, etc. grandchild of a Spaniard who's possession of the land upon which one lives came from Onate coming from Spain and seizing the very village, that one resides in, from the American Indians, there is little or no choice concerning where one will live.
>
> say that by some splashing around in the gene pool that is where you ended up. you are very poor and your education ended at the fourth grade in the schoolhouse that one of your ancestors built more than one hundred years ago.
>
> you have a wife, a grown daughter who had a stroke and she lives on your property also and you have your grandchildren that you and your elderly wife take care of. you live from the SS check that your daughter draws monthly. 8 of you do. you've never considered choosing to live down the river in Rinconada, instead of Velarde, because you can't.
>
> when the neighboring potter decides to burn his trash on a windy day and starts a huge fire, you are very kind when the volunteer women firefighters in your village come to your aid before the volunteer truck arrives from Riconada.
>
> you don't even laugh when the men, from Rinconada, argue over who will hold the hose because you've been such a good neighbor to the women who are now surrounded by flames by your house that you know they will do whatever it takes to save your house and they do.
>
> even after the men in the truck become angry and back up over their tools and break them, you still had faith that your neighbors will continue to use their own tools to fight the fire. your choice was to always be a good neighbor and in turn you have friends who are willing to risk their lives, or at least incur 2nd or 3rd degree burns, because they want to save your small house.
>
> the choice of being a good neighbor, without a chance of moving, in that small village in New Mexico and also being the kind of neighbor that the volunteers responded to, in spite of the dangers that were involved that day could apply to the posters and the moderators here very easily. AND as i said before, there is your choice of whether or not you post here and now i point out that you have the choice of how you "live" here.
>
> IF there are people here who BELIEVE, in their hearts, there should be more moderators and more professionalism, i suggest that the proper thing to do would be to volunteer and start studying up on professionalism and kindness towards ones fellow man.
>
> oh yes, the villager who's house C and I helped save was our "mayor domo"........
>
>i meant for this to cover the choice of posting here, living there & the mod post concerning professionalism.......didn't change subject line. sorry.
Posted by zazenducky on October 12, 2006, at 15:22:26
In reply to oops! choices, mods and professionalism, posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 14:55:14
I'm glad you enjoyed your years as a volunteer fireman. You have a right to be proud. That's beautiful country. I've been enchanted myself.
I think the analogy with the board may be getting a wee bit overdrawn though :)Bob has had 3 new volunteer deputies waiting to start for almost a year. He said he only wants 2 and he will choose 2 of the 3 volunteers at some point.
But I agree that people who believe in impartiality and fair treatment and want to act professionally should volunteer and it will be nice if Bob allows them too. I think in the meantime people should continue to offer suggestions on the admin board if they want to. That's what it's here for.I think it would be more useful if people practised kindness rather than studied it however.
It's nice to see you back on Babble!
> > Impartiality.... treating everyone fairly and equally......
> >
> > there's the ticket....more professional I'd say.
> >
> > I propose Bob add that to the job description :)
> >
> >
> > I'm not certain how I am going to cover what I want to in one post, but I'm going to try it.
> >
> > Choices about where one lives: when one is the great, great, great, etc. grandchild of a Spaniard who's possession of the land upon which one lives came from Onate coming from Spain and seizing the very village, that one resides in, from the American Indians, there is little or no choice concerning where one will live.
> >
> > say that by some splashing around in the gene pool that is where you ended up. you are very poor and your education ended at the fourth grade in the schoolhouse that one of your ancestors built more than one hundred years ago.
> >
> > you have a wife, a grown daughter who had a stroke and she lives on your property also and you have your grandchildren that you and your elderly wife take care of. you live from the SS check that your daughter draws monthly. 8 of you do. you've never considered choosing to live down the river in Rinconada, instead of Velarde, because you can't.
> >
> > when the neighboring potter decides to burn his trash on a windy day and starts a huge fire, you are very kind when the volunteer women firefighters in your village come to your aid before the volunteer truck arrives from Riconada.
> >
> > you don't even laugh when the men, from Rinconada, argue over who will hold the hose because you've been such a good neighbor to the women who are now surrounded by flames by your house that you know they will do whatever it takes to save your house and they do.
> >
> > even after the men in the truck become angry and back up over their tools and break them, you still had faith that your neighbors will continue to use their own tools to fight the fire. your choice was to always be a good neighbor and in turn you have friends who are willing to risk their lives, or at least incur 2nd or 3rd degree burns, because they want to save your small house.
> >
> > the choice of being a good neighbor, without a chance of moving, in that small village in New Mexico and also being the kind of neighbor that the volunteers responded to, in spite of the dangers that were involved that day could apply to the posters and the moderators here very easily. AND as i said before, there is your choice of whether or not you post here and now i point out that you have the choice of how you "live" here.
> >
> > IF there are people here who BELIEVE, in their hearts, there should be more moderators and more professionalism, i suggest that the proper thing to do would be to volunteer and start studying up on professionalism and kindness towards ones fellow man.
> >
> > oh yes, the villager who's house C and I helped save was our "mayor domo"........
> >
> >
>
> i meant for this to cover the choice of posting here, living there & the mod post concerning professionalism.......didn't change subject line. sorry.
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 15:35:04
In reply to More volunteers and impartiality needed » fayeroe, posted by zazenducky on October 12, 2006, at 15:22:26
Friends,
It is written here,[...I think..continue to offer..on the administration board.That's what it is here for...].
Lou's second smiley>>>:-)
Lou
Posted by NikkiT2 on October 12, 2006, at 15:44:44
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of NikkiT2's post, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 7:48:48
Doesn't using my name in the subject line imply *I* am being replied to, when I have requested this not happen?
Posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 16:07:07
In reply to More volunteers and impartiality needed » fayeroe, posted by zazenducky on October 12, 2006, at 15:22:26
there are times when a message being broken down into pieces as small as you can break it works better than not....... i felt that comparing the mods to firefighters was a stretch.......as i said....so as i knew there probably weren't many volunteer fire fighters here, i described how that process works.
i'm certainly not taking anything away from big words and long drawn out sentences. i have quite a few of those in my computer and can pull them out at a moment's notice. :-) if so inclined...i think a lot of things that happen here at Babble get a bit overdrawn and tedious. that's why i used the analogy that i knew might make sense and provide a moment or two of lightness.
"I think it would be more useful if people practised kindness rather than studied it however." In order to pratice it, sometimes one has to study it.........i've only dropped into see what condition my condition was in. thanks for your welcome. pat
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 16:19:01
In reply to Lou's response to zazenducky's post-LSS, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 15:35:04
Friends,
It is written here something like about that posting about what someone wrote and saying in the subject line that you are responding to what is written by that member.
The rule reads that,[...directing either the subject line or the body of the post [to them] is the criteria that is diierentiating as to if you are posting {to them} or responding to what is in the post. The rule then says that,[...Replying to posts [by someone], which are the {aspects} of that post, is not necessarily {posting} >to them<...].(for you are responding to what is written, not to the poster)
If you notice my posts, I do not use the word {reply}, but the word {respond}, because I am not replying to the {person}, but responding to the >aspects< of what the person wrote, not directing my {response} to {them}.
I am sorry if anyone thinks that I am directing a post to them if I write that I am {responding to aspects of what they wrote}. I think that the purpose of the rule is to prohibit others from directing statements directly to a poster who does not want dialog with you,like asking them to clarify something that they wrote, and that one can still respond to what those members post by not posting on the body that the post is to them. That is why I have my posts start with "friends", not the poster's name, of the content that I am responding to. When someone uses my name to direct a post to me, then I {reply} by putting in my subject line, [... Lou's {reply} to ...] so as to differentiate that my post is either a reply to them or a response to aspects of what they wrote.
My sinceree aplogies to anyone that does not want to have dialog with me who thought that I was wanting to have dialog with them when they have a desire to exclude me from replying to them. I have tried my best to work within the rules here and thought that I was doing so in oreder to accomodate those that do not want me to post to them.
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 16:46:33
In reply to Re: More volunteers and impartiality needed, posted by fayeroe on October 12, 2006, at 16:07:07
Friends,
It is written here,[...a message broken down into pieces as small as you can..works better than not...]
Lou's third smiley>>:-)
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 22:20:10
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of the DNP rule, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 16:19:01
Friends,
I have found a response from Dr Hsiung concerning as to if one can post a response to a post and that the response is not a {post to the author of the post that they are responding to}.
Dr Hsiung writes,[...others could still post their opinions as long as they didn't post them to you...].
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060918/msgs/694021.html
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 22:33:13
In reply to Lou finds response from Dr Hsiung to clear up rule, posted by Lou Pilder on October 12, 2006, at 22:20:10
Friends,
The corrected link is;
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060826/msgs/680964.html
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 20:28:52
In reply to Apples and oranges and bears, oh my!, posted by gardenergirl on October 11, 2006, at 20:15:14
Friends,
It is written here,[...reasonable people might disagree what constitutes antisemitism...]
That may be true, so I asked Dr. Hsiung what could constitute antisemitism in this forum and he replied on the board. If anyone who has missed his post would like to see his reply and would like to avoid doing a search or some other way to find it, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 20:41:07
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of gardenergirl's post-, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 20:28:52
Frirnds,
If you could be wanting to say that my posts above are more than 3 consecutive posts, the forth post is separated by two days, which has come up before as not being a follow -up, and it is something new (aspects of gardenergirl's post)which means I am responding to another person. If you look in the archives, you can find 4 or 5 consecutive posts but they are concerning different people, one at a time.
I agree that with that exception because the intent of the rule as Dr. Hsiung has written allows for exceptions and is flexible. The rule centers on follow-ups {to your own post}, not posts to different people in the same thread.
Thanks,
Lou
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 16, 2006, at 1:40:18
In reply to Lou's note concerning the 3 consecutive post rule, posted by Lou Pilder on October 14, 2006, at 20:41:07
> the forth post is separated by two days
> The rule centers on follow-ups {to your own post}, not posts to different people in the same thread.How many days separate follow-ups isn't a factor, and it is in fact responses to earlier posts by different people that are the intended exceptions...
Bob
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.