![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]Shown: posts 17 to 41 of 54. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 10:44:05
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Partlycloudy on December 10, 2013, at 5:42:38
> Your game of giving me a multiple choice answer is not fair. It actually smacks of a really poor therapist I endured two sessions with. Every topic resulted in a "20 question" type response from the therapist.
>
> So, I am not going to play. You give me your considered answer.
>
> As to what my therapist and psychiatrist think of your expertise? Well, I am afraid to say that they don't think highly of you. Your ethics. Your approach towards the community. They think you are in way above your head.My considered answer was that those would all be good for the board. It wasn't a test. It was a list of options. Like a menu. The multiple choice aspect was that it would be up to posters which (if any) to choose for themselves.
Do you not care for anything on the menu? Is there something else you'd like me to add?
And I wasn't wondering what they thought of me, I was wondering how those options compared with the options they advised for you. If they give you advice at all. I understand their approach might be not to guide you, but to help you find your own way.
(If they wanted to chime in themselves, I'd welcome that. Maybe they'd be able to teach me a thing or two.)
Bob
Posted by Partlycloudy on December 10, 2013, at 11:11:45
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 10:44:05
That is no answer.
And I am not going to tell you how they think you should run this site - there are web consultants for that.
No dodging. Straight answer. Come on.
PC
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 17:35:26
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Partlycloudy on December 10, 2013, at 11:11:45
> That is no answer.
>
> No dodging. Straight answer. Come on.Maybe I misunderstood. Could you repeat the question?
> And I am not going to tell you how they think you should run this site - there are web consultants for that.
That's fine, I can manage. But I wasn't wondering how they thought I should run this site, I was wondering how the options I suggested compared with the options they advised for you. If you'd prefer not to answer the question, that's fine.
Bob
Posted by Partlycloudy on December 10, 2013, at 17:56:07
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 17:35:26
> > That is no answer.
> >
> > No dodging. Straight answer. Come on.
>
> Maybe I misunderstood. Could you repeat the question?I am not falling for that. If you don't want to answer your OWN question - how you would like me to handle sh*t slinging at Babble - then say so. YOU posed the question, not me.
We can drop it and say that you lost your trail of thought, rather than couldn't be bothered to read the thread.>
> > And I am not going to tell you how they think you should run this site - there are web consultants for that.
>
> That's fine, I can manage. But I wasn't wondering how they thought I should run this site, I was wondering how the options I suggested compared with the options they advised for you. If you'd prefer not to answer the question, that's fine.
>
> BobThey think that you should not be running this site. The End.
PC
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:46:10
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Partlycloudy on December 10, 2013, at 17:56:07
> > I wasn't wondering how they thought I should run this site, I was wondering how the options I suggested compared with the options they advised for you. If you'd prefer not to answer the question, that's fine.
>
> They think that you should not be running this site. The End.OK, the end of that discussion.
> > Maybe I misunderstood. Could you repeat the question?
>
> I am not falling for that. If you don't want to answer your OWN question - how you would like me to handle sh*t slinging at Babble - then say so. YOU posed the question, not me.OK, let me try again:
Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
1. not sling it back
2. shield themselves
3. help others shield themselves
4. notify me if they think I should respond
5. express how they feel
6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
7. support the slingerSince you're a poster, I'd like you to choose one or more of those options, too.
Did that count as an answer?
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 18:51:48
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Partlycloudy on December 10, 2013, at 17:56:07
I read a good number of posts to my therapist today, including posts by Dr. Bob.
His suggestions ranged from Dr. Bob having gone to a few seminars on group management and awkwardly attempting to figure out how to use them, to Dr. Bob setting up situations that will prove beneficial to his research without fair disclosure to the guinea pigs. And we bandied about a few more amusing possibilities. But there is no point trying to figure it out, since Dr. Bob is unlikely to be open.
My therapist was pretty much in line with yours about recent board administration. He's surprised. He points out that if someone is in an unmoderated place where sh*t is being thrown, they have the option of growing a thicker skin or leaving the situation. Which would *always* be my choice. If this were happening in my Sunday School, I'd find a different church. If this were happening in my workplace, I'd file a complaint with the proper authorities as I looked for another job. But he pointed out that this *isn't* an unmoderated situation and there is a reasonable expectation that rules will be fairly and consistently enforced towards all. He can't see any benefit whatsoever to allowing sh*t to be flung at some but not all.
Posted by SLS on December 10, 2013, at 21:06:21
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:46:10
> OK, let me try again:
>
> Q: How would I like you to handle the sh*t slinging here?
>
> A: I'd like posters to choose one or more of the following options:
>
> 1. not sling it back
> 2. shield themselves
> 3. help others shield themselves
> 4. notify me if they think I should respond
> 5. express how they feel
> 6. reflect on times they've slung it themselves, or wanted to
> 7. support the slingerI wish you weren't so damned logical. This list of options makes a great deal of sense. It may be too idyllic a model, though. If no one has a shield for a particular insult, or no one with a shield cares to get involved, how will you protect the community from the insult and minimize the trauma to the individual? I realize that this is a work in progress and represents an experiment on your part, even though it appears that you have given this a great deal of thought and deliberation.
I think it is a mistake to declare that one person is more deserving of your protection than any other. I think it would be helpful if you were to keep people connected rather than segregated. Perhaps you can state how the protection of the one from a particular insult also is protection the whole. Just be careful to avoid selective enforcement. I think it would be crucial to treat everyone equally and with the same standards of civility. If you are already doing this, it escapes a great many people.
I know that I underestimate you.
- Scott
Posted by Partlycloudy on December 11, 2013, at 5:37:56
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 10, 2013, at 18:46:10
Thank you, Dr. Bob.
Since I consider sh*t slinging to come from a place of great hurt (personally), I would prefer the last choice.
Support the slinger.
ha ha ha ha
Would that ever happen? By a choice compassionate few.There. It only took a thread of you dancing around the direct questions I posed to get a direct answer out of me.
PC
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2013, at 10:04:57
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Partlycloudy on December 11, 2013, at 5:37:56
> if someone is in an unmoderated place where sh*t is being thrown, they have the option of growing a thicker skin or leaving the situation. Which would *always* be my choice. ... But ... this *isn't* an unmoderated situation and there is a reasonable expectation that rules will be fairly and consistently enforced towards all.
>
> DinahOK, if it's there's no moderator, you see the options as:
a. grow a thicker skin/use one's shield more effectively
b. leaveIf there's a moderator, those options remain. Do you also see additional options then?
--
> I wish you weren't so damned logical. This list of options makes a great deal of sense. It may be too idyllic a model, though. If no one has a shield for a particular insult, or no one with a shield cares to get involved, how will you protect the community from the insult and minimize the trauma to the individual?
>
> I think it is a mistake to declare that one person is more deserving of your protection than any other. I think it would be helpful if you were to keep people connected rather than segregated. ... I think it would be crucial to treat everyone equally and with the same standards of civility. If you are already doing this, it escapes a great many people.
>
> - ScottI agree, the Babble model may be too idyllic. Well, dream big.
I try to treat everyone fairly, and according to the same standards. I also try to connect posters. For example, sometimes I suggest that X may have something in common with Y.
I didn't mean to imply that anyone's more deserving of my protection. Is it OK to ask who's more in need of it?
If no one has a shield, maybe I should block the slinger. But if no one with a shield cares to get involved, maybe it makes sense to focus on that.
--
> Since I consider sh*t slinging to come from a place of great hurt (personally), I would prefer the last choice.
>
> Support the slinger.
>
> ha ha ha ha
> Would that ever happen? By a choice compassionate few.
>
> There. It only took a thread of you dancing around the direct questions I posed to get a direct answer out of me.
>
> PCThat was a direct answer? OK, I'll take what I can get.
I did list that option last for a reason.
I imagine that choice compassionate posters aren't few in number here, but feel inhibited by the vocal, and respected, subgroup pressing for sanctions.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 18:32:34
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2013, at 10:04:57
> > if someone is in an unmoderated place where sh*t is being thrown, they have the option of growing a thicker skin or leaving the situation. Which would *always* be my choice. ... But ... this *isn't* an unmoderated situation and there is a reasonable expectation that rules will be fairly and consistently enforced towards all.
> >
> > Dinah
>
> OK, if it's there's no moderator, you see the options as:
>
> a. grow a thicker skin/use one's shield more effectively
> b. leave
>
> If there's a moderator, those options remain. Do you also see additional options then?
Well, Dr. Bob. That's not really up to me. If a moderator chooses not to moderate, then effectively the situation is unmoderated. And my response would be what it always is in an unmoderated situation.I guess I'm just having a hard time with acceptance. Once I accept that Babble is what it is, I'll be better at leaving. I'm already better at acceptance than I was. I leave for weeks at a time now, without even glancing at Babble.
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 18:37:16
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2013, at 10:04:57
> I imagine that choice compassionate posters aren't few in number here, but feel inhibited by the vocal, and respected, subgroup pressing for sanctions.
>
> BobCompassionate posters are here. But they may or may not agree with you. Surely you would know better than I if there is a large press of people asking that Lou be allowed to post whatever he wants, if they're too intimidated by those who disagree to say so publicly but do tell you privately. Even when I was standing up for Lou against others, I don't recall hearing that many calls for his being allowed to post what other people aren't allowed to post. But, again, you may know better.
I don't think I like the idea of you deciding that if posters are compassionate, they will respond in the way you wish. Compassionate posters can be compassionate about others as well. And they may not even agree with you as to what's compassionate towards Lou.
And this really should have been directed towards Admin long ago. Psychology has always been a safer place than Admin, and ought to remain so.
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 18:47:30
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 18:37:16
Although I must confess....
I may be compassionate towards a person who occasionally slings sh*t, but I have zero compassion towards slinging sh*t. Is one supposed to? How about compassion for the person on the receiving end? Where's your compassion for that person?
Oh yes, I forgot. Your perception is that they don't need any help from you but should handle it themselves or with what help their friends can lend. Or if not just be quiet about it so as not to disturb you. Or leave.
Posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 19:31:21
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 18:47:30
We'll never understand each other. It's not worth it to continue.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2013, at 1:26:17
In reply to Oh forget it., posted by Dinah on December 12, 2013, at 19:31:21
> Compassionate posters are here. But they may or may not agree with you. Surely you would know better than I if there is a large press of people asking that Lou be allowed to post whatever he wants
Asking that someone be allowed to post whatever they want isn't the only way to express compassion.
> I don't think I like the idea of you deciding that if posters are compassionate, they will respond in the way you wish.
True, there are other ways to express compassion. For example, asking that someone be allowed to post whatever they want.
> I may be compassionate towards a person who occasionally slings sh*t, but I have zero compassion towards slinging sh*t. Is one supposed to? How about compassion for the person on the receiving end? Where's your compassion for that person?
I usually try to differentiate between the person and the behavior. Option 7 referred to the person.
It's fine, and in fact encouraged, to express compassion for the person on the receiving end. It's not either-or.
> Oh yes, I forgot. Your perception is that they don't need any help from you but should handle it themselves or with what help their friends can lend. Or if not just be quiet about it so as not to disturb you. Or leave.
My feeling is that posters who don't have friends need protection from me more than posters who do.
It isn't about disturbing me. It's about being supportive. Do you think I'd be here if I didn't want to be disturbed?
> We'll never understand each other. It's not worth it to continue.
We might not. But it's worth it to me to continue to try.
Bob
Posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 9:26:17
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 14, 2013, at 1:26:17
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055942.html
That's all I have to say about that. If this is going to be the "Let Lou insult whoever he wishes" site, then it will be that, and it's up to me to decide what to do about it.
I have.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 15, 2013, at 22:02:22
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 14, 2013, at 9:26:17
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20130903/msgs/1055942.html
>
> That's all I have to say about that. If this is going to be the "Let Lou insult whoever he wishes" site, then it will be that, and it's up to me to decide what to do about it.If follow-ups are going to be about who gets to insult whom, they should be directed to the above thread.
If they're going to be about getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, they may continue be posted here.
Thanks,
Bob
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 10:23:55
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Dr. Bob on December 12, 2013, at 10:04:57
> If no one has a shield, maybe I should block the slinger. But if no one with a shield cares to get involved, maybe it makes sense to focus on that.
I have a shield, mostly basic logic/critical thinking, reinforced by stuff I've learned since reading "Emotional Intelligence", which I highly recommend.
I've already expressed many of my thoughts elsewhere, so I'll try to be brief. The perception of feces-slinging is in the eyes of the beholder - note that not everyone is complaining about it. It seems some here are misinterpreting my comments as "get over it" or "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" stuff. They would be wrong. I simply ask that the chronically-insulted at least CONSIDER the possibility of having other responses, even NO response to said insults. I realize that it might seem impossible to some, but it's not. Maybe Bob simply realizes that PB is no different than real life, in that there is no utopia, and trying to create one is frought with unintended consequences.
I may be miffed about such-and-such post, but I really try to not run away with it. I try to recognize my visceral response as quickly as possible, remind myself that I don't have to run with it, and try to redirect my thoughts. If I go off the rails, it's not the poster's responsibility, nor is it Bob's. Each time I succeed in not going where I don't want to go in the first place, I consider a victory. When I fail, I review it after calming down, remind myself that I can treat myself better next time.
Bob, is that one type of shield you're referring to?
Posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 10:57:14
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 10:23:55
I think some folks prefer therapists who I would refer to as enablers. I'm familiar with that because I had one. While I was in her care, it felt marvelous, someone finally understood me and was on my side!!! Yep, it felt great, and I didn't learn a goddamn thing from it! And the same folks appear to want PB to be the same thing for them, i.e. blow sunshine up their *ss*s, minus the $200 fee. That is not a shield, that's a refuge.
If Bob turned PB into Sesame Street, it would be peaceful, banal, useless, perfect for children.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 16, 2013, at 12:51:01
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on December 10, 2013, at 3:45:16
> > > Why can't I be included in the net of protection that Lou has with you? (You can't deny that you give him protection from other posters.)
> >
> > Think of me as a homeless shelter. You can't be included because you're not homeless.
>
> So you're saying that Babble is now being run for Lou and people as disturbed as Lou? And everyone else has to suck it? We're not nuts enough for you to give a crap about us?
>
> Got it. Bye.
>
> Friends,
It is written here, [...people as (redacted by respondent)as Lou...].
The statement is a false statement for I am not disturbed. The statement could arouse hostile and disagreeable opinions and feelings against me and decrease the respect, regard and confidence in which I am held. The fact that the TOS here is that unsanctioned statements could be thought by a subset of readers to be supportive and good for this community as a whole, could lead a subset of readers to think that Mr. Hsiung is validating the libel against me.
Lou
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 15:52:19
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 10:57:14
first year philosophy students often have trouble seeing that an argument is valid even though it has a false conclusion or seeing that an argument is invalid even though they believe the conclusion is true. they don't seem able to separate out the form of the reasoning from the content of the argument.
i think that often people have similar things going on with respect to meaningful content and a bunch of other stuff that people do with language. For instance, a lot of people have trouble seeing that you can understand what someone is saying (listen to them, empathize with the fact that they believe what they believe or whatever) without necessarily agreeing with it or thinking it oneself.
I think the later sometimes results in 'oh yeah, she is such a bitch' sorts of affiliative gestures. The person saying it doesn't believe it - but it seems to be the sort of thing to say to placate the person who is upset. And that is the function of language, clearly. Social grooming. 'Do you know where the x is because is something goes wrong we will need the x?' 'oh yes, of course I do, tee hee'. Uh huh.
I...
Apparently people who score higher on the schizotypal scales (university students) are better at logic. (Who would have thought!?)
I...
I don't know what to say.
How do you help people tease these things apart?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 15:57:21
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 15:52:19
my last therapist seemed to be all about affiliative gesture. most of the people over on the north sure. affirmation bias, indeed. don't ever ask them something where they have the option of nodding and agreeing - because nod and agree they will. they would nod and agree with everything right up to an instruction to electrocute another. all for the function of social bonding. pretty f*ck*ng sure of it.
how do you communicate meaningful content with such people?
all i got is: you don't.
that is why i didn't feel listened to. i didn't feel like my last t heard the content of what i was saying. i didn't actually need her to agree with what i was saying - i just needed her to be able to grasp it. she couldn't really get much beyond my tone of voice.
communication...
yay internet.
only... even here... sigh.
Posted by Willful on December 16, 2013, at 18:04:38
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Moishe Pipik on December 16, 2013, at 10:57:14
I wouldn't assume that all therapist just offer a warm and cuddly environment where their patients can be supported or treated with socalled 'unconditional positive regard.? Your belief in that may come from your experiences in therapy, but it's certainly not the only approach that therapists take. It's only one small theme in therapy.
It sounds to me as though you might be negatively idealizing your past therapist. Now that it didn't work out, or ended, you have the negative debunking version of your previously idealizing version-- but neither are very realistic.
Posted by Willful on December 16, 2013, at 18:16:22
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 15:52:19
A lot of this seems to be the result of some sort of chronic disappointment with everyone and and everything that you run up against.
You say, essentially, that no one understands you; that a lot of people can't recognize the distinction between understanding and agreeing; that language is merely about social grooming, instead of communication, or understanding, etc-.
But maybe people do understand you-- at least basically--, and what you're really looking for is more than understanding - but something that privileges your needs perhaps, or elevates your perceptions and values.
I'm not sure why you assume that because people don't give you, or don't know how to give you, what you need, that it's some deficiency in them. This is difficult at best in even the most meaningful relationships to achieve. And are you giving people what you think they owe you? I'm just wondering, because maybe your incomprehension of and demands on them are just as unattuned to them as theirs are to you.
It's a hard thing to learn to be less judgmental, and more wholehearted and also to see your limitations as creating a big part of what happens. But I wonder if that isn't where you let yourself down, and where all these disappointments in part stem from
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 20:11:07
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by Willful on December 16, 2013, at 18:16:22
> A lot of this seems to be the result of some sort of chronic disappointment with everyone and and everything that you run up against.
If you had have said this to me several months ago a part of me deep inside would have sadly recognized that this may well be true. And I would have hung my head in shame, rather.
But a few weeks back I moved... And I have not been feeling very much in the way of disappointment with everyone and everything. Instead, everyone and everything seems to be throwing me fairly continuous pleasant surprises.
> You say, essentially, that no one understands you; that a lot of people can't recognize the distinction between understanding and agreeing; that language is merely about social grooming, instead of communication, or understanding, etc-.That was what I found before, yes. They thought I was deficient with respect to my not using language for this purpose, of course.
> But maybe people do understand you-- at least basically--, and what you're really looking for is more than understanding - but something that privileges your needs perhaps, or elevates your perceptions and values.They do understand me now, yes. Part of it is easily checked: Say back to me what you took me to have said to you. Then listen to what they say. Do they have the ability to restate what I just told them using their own words? Before... Not so much. Now... Yes. This isn't to say that they agree with what I'm saying or anything like that... But they at least seem capable of basic understanding / comprehension of it. And that means a lot.
Just as it seems to mean a lot to some people that you be willing to say things like 'oh yeah, absolutely, that person is such a bitch! i hate her too!' and so on... your willingness to agree with contradiction for the sake of agreement and so on... your ability to wear what everyone else is wearing *because* everyone else is wearing it. and so on...
> I'm not sure why you assume that because people don't give you, or don't know how to give you, what you need, that it's some deficiency in them. This is difficult at best in even the most meaningful relationships to achieve. And are you giving people what you think they owe you? I'm just wondering, because maybe your incomprehension of and demands on them are just as unattuned to them as theirs are to you.Perhaps.
I am thinking of (what I remember of) cross cultural research that was done from the 60's... Maybe earlier... They asked the natives (in local language) to answer some questions... They concluded that they weren't able to think hypothetically or they weren't able to reason according to the (valid) logical form of modus ponens or something like that. The research was later critiqued. They said it was culturally biased. The problem was that it was against local custom to speculate on things unseen. Or something like that.
I think there is a difference between can't vs won't. INABILITY to do certain things vs MAKING A CONSCIOUS DECISION to do it or not. There is a difference between refusing to speculate and being unable to speculate. There is a difference between refusing to engage in social grooming and being unable to engage in social grooming. Of course... Some incapacities will only show up in some contexts...
> It's a hard thing to learn to be less judgmental, and more wholehearted and also to see your limitations as creating a big part of what happens. But I wonder if that isn't where you let yourself down, and where all these disappointments in part stem fromCurrently... I am feeling very humbled by my present environment. People seem to be consistently exceeding my expectations rather than my consistently feeling disappointed. I'm not sure what it is...
People who are blind... Unable to process visual information... The part of their cortex that (in sighted people) processes visual information is instead activated in response to different information. Auditory. And / or tactile. Etc. So the person with reduced capacity to process visual information has increased capacity to process non-visual information. Who is deficient / dysfunctional again?
Best thing all conference (someone said something like this and when i questioned them they said my supervisor said it to them): When you have a lot of feedback loops / when change (in the fitness / adaptive landscape) is rapid e.g., in cases of behavior or culture or technology then it might not make sense to talk of what is adaptive vs maladaptive vs different.
I'm paraphrasing. But there it is. My thesis. Lets see if I can make this work...
The strangest thing. Why do I tell you guys all this? Why do I do that? There are communities of people in my field and related ones.. Blogs etc.. Why do I do this stuff here???
Posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 22:07:41
In reply to Re: Getting along in a sh*t-slinging world, posted by alexandra_k on December 16, 2013, at 20:11:07
actually this reminds me of pc describing the group she goes to. how she feels at home there. surrounded by people who understand her. she feels... understood and accepted there.
i... would feel like an alien freak in that group.
there are so many different lifeways for people...
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Psychology | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
[email protected]
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.