Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 7713

Shown: posts 142 to 166 of 194. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) Dr. Bob

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 6:48:05

In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35

Friends,
Another issue involved in this discussion is that I had previously posted that the Rider said to me:
"Marvel not that I say to you ,you Must be born again".
But now it appears to me that the administration could, but not necessarily, include that post with[..only God and you shall have no other Gods before me], so it appears to me that my previous post would also constitute disrespcting others , putting down others, or pressuring others if we use the same rational that deems my post in question to be restrained. Now there was acceptance of the post saying that you must be born again, and in its context it meant that you must be born again in order to see the Kingdom of God.
Now since there is a change indicated to me in this, then it appears to me that the administraion could thearfor also deem many of the other posts of mine to also be restrined, but not necessarily, and could possibly be subject to deletion, although that has not been put forth by the administration here but I feel that it has the potential to happen.
The constitution of the United States prohibits the concept of what is called "Ex post Facto". which is Latin for "a thing done afteword".
www.law,cornell,edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
I am asking that none of the posts that I have already posted be deleted as a result of this discussion in advance and want to bring into this discussion the concept of "Ex Post Facto" only so that our discussion can be aware of this concept so that we can disscuss this better with each other. It is only the potential for the previous posts of mine to be deleted and there has been no indication to me that the administration would do that, but I just want us to be aware of this unconstutuional concept for there are going to be rule changes made for the administration has asked us in this thread for ideas and I am saying that any idea that is "Ex Post Facto", I would object to.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4)

Posted by coral on October 27, 2002, at 8:11:59

In reply to Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) Dr. Bob, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 6:48:05

I can't imagine how the Constitution applies in this situation. If a company decides that certain pictures are inappropriate - perhaps it's a picture of a product they no longer produce - they have every right to remove the pictures that were previously appropriate but not now.
I'm not suggesting that any previous post be removed or should be removed. I'm simply saying that the Constitution would not prohibit such an action.

 

Re: revised introduction--A OK Dr. Bob

Posted by tina on October 27, 2002, at 10:24:10

In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35

sounds like just the thing doc. Sound proposal indeed!

 

Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) coral

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 12:22:17

In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4), posted by coral on October 27, 2002, at 8:11:59

coral,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
Yes, I would agree with you that the situation that you describe does not apply to the U.S. Constitution. Howevr, the situation that I am discussing here is of a different nature in regards to the U.S. Constitution. For instance, could the company make a rule that says that an employee will be firerd if he comes to work with out a tie and then fire a man because he came to work without a tie last week?
Lou

 

Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4) coral

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 17:45:15

In reply to Re: Lou's response to Dr. Bob's question-part(4), posted by coral on October 27, 2002, at 8:11:59

coral,
The concept of "Ex Post Facto" goes into play in another way in this discussion. You see, Dr. Bob has answered one of my requests for clarification by listing posts that are OK or not OK. But the list was posted After the posts were made. So no one knew of the list untill after the fact.
Now a reaonable person could give credence that the list was made to allow one post to be OK and the other not OK, because the list was made by the person that wants to restrain my post, even though that fact can not be known at this time to be one way or the other. It could be known after more of the discussion is completed, though.
Lou

 

louelsa

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 22:54:32

In reply to Re: revised introduction, posted by Dr. Bob on October 26, 2002, at 15:45:35

Friends,
The two restraints , now, that are listed for the faith board is that you do not pressure others to do the same or put down others for doing something different. I have asked the administration to state their descriminating rational for restraining my post and and allowing the other post to be posted unrestrained and I have had no response .
This "stonewalls" me to discuss the issue at hand. Unless I know what their descrimatory rational is for allowing one and restraining the other, I would have to speculate as to what their reason is to do so. And I do not want to have to speculate in a discussion, particularly with the one that initiates the inviation to discuss.
I am asking that the moderator state the dscriminatory rational that says that my post will be restained and the other was not restained. If he could do that, then I could point out any arbitraryness, or capreciousness or any descriminatory aspect to the rational if it is seen.
Lou

 

Re: louelsa Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

In reply to louelsa, posted by Lou Pilder on October 27, 2002, at 22:54:32

Lou,

NO ONE is discriminating against you.

I have, many time, pointe dout the differences between your post and the others you have bought up. They said "*I* believe xxx", you implied "*YOU* should believe xxx".

This has nothing to do with you being a jew. No one has said you can't continue recounting your experience and beliefs, people have just asked that you be more careful with your wording. I have given you many examples of how you could accomplish this.

being so accusatory to Dr Bob will also not help you in my opinion. He does a very tough job here, having to keep the masses happy and not just you.
Is the fact that I was offended by your ""Only a fool, in his heart, says that there is no God."
comment less valuable than the fact you have been offended by Dr Bobs subsequent actions??

I fail to understand why you are still arguing the same argurment when this has already been pointe dout to you.

Nikki

 

Lou's question toDr. Bob NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 7:24:39

In reply to Re: louelsa Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

Nikki,
Sorrey, but I have not recieved an answer to my question to Dr. Bob to state his descrimintory rational for allowing[Jesus became my salvato to those that obey Him and then ,using that same rational to say that he will restrain me from posting[...one God.and that I shall have no other Gods before Him.]
theris no imploication that I am implying that othyers shall believe that they shall have no other Gods before them any more than tere is any implication that the other poster is implying that others should believe that[Jesus beacame our salvation to those that obey Him]
That is why I am asking Dr. Bob to state his descrimintory rational for this, if that is what he is saying. I want to hear Dr. Bob say that himself so that I we can discuss it here.
The imperitive to me is not , in anyway an imperitive t anyone else anymore that anyone's beliefe that in their heart that they beliee that there is no GOd is saying that I can not beliee in my God.
The one that stated theat Jesus became OUR salvtion to those that obey Him, carries an imperitve that says [OUR] salvtion. I am saying that my God says Me , not our, that I shall have no other Gods before me.
Without me being able to atate that the Rider told ME that, I am prohibited doing what the other poster can do, that is to say that Jesus became OUR salvation to those tht OBEY HIM, then I would like Dr. Bob to state his rational for such for if one is not OK thenthe other is not OK or both are OK. This is why I need t have Dr. Bob, not anyone else, post his rational so hat we can be accurate in this discussion.
Lou

 

Lou' response to Nikki's post (2)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 8:07:29

In reply to Re: louelsa Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

Nikki,
It is my understanding that the following statement would be restrained here:
[The Rider said to me "I am your God amd you shall have no other Gods before me."]
The statement that has not been restrained, is:
[Jesus became our salvation to those that Obey Him]
I am asking for the desrimatory rational that says that my post will be restrained, and how the rational has not prohibbited the other to have been restrained.
Now if you are saying that my post is OK as you see it now, then Dr. Bob could have posted that and thee would be no discusson needed about this clarification that I am askng for. But that has never been stated, for Dr. Bob did state that It was the "imperitve" to me, and it it self-evident that all faith statements here are by the posters telling of Their faith experiance. If any statement here is implying that others must believe in their God, it is the one that says that [Jesus became OUR salvation to those that Obey Him]. This is why I am asking Dr. Bob to state his rational for descriminating between the two posts.
Someone also posted a post here that implied that the posters here would have to be treated as being of some very low degree of intellegence if I was requiered to say, [The Rider said to me, Lou,. ...]to have to post evry post of mine about the Rider. And anyway, if that is Dr. Bob's rational , then I am asking him to clarify it and this discussion could end. But that is not what has been said by Dr. Bob. He is now saying, by his new page for the faith board, that my post either says that I am putting down others or pressuring others. The other criteria has been deleted from his rules. I am asking fir him to state his rational that allows the one post and will be a restrainer of my post.
If you could explaine why you would not allow me to post:
[The Rider said to me, I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me] and the say that you would allow, [Jesua became our salvation to those that obey Him] ,then could you tell me why you would do that? My post is not telloing others to beleiev in my God, but the other post says"our" salvation which is ian implication.
If you could clarify this or me, I could have a better undestanding of your posts and we could communicate better in this discussion.
Lou

 

Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 8:25:06

In reply to Re: louelsa Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

Nikki,
You say that I am not being told that I can not continue recounting your experiance and belief and that I could continue if I changed mt wording and there are examples given of the changes.
Nikki, I beleive that I do not have to say something that wasn't said to me. That would be quoting falsely. Are you are suggesting to me, in any way, to quote falsly in order to post here? If you are, then could you tell me why it would be allowable for the post [Jesus became our salvation to all those tha obey Him] to not also have the wording changed? If you could, then I would be better able to communicate with you in this discussion.
Lou

 

Lou's response to Nikki'spost (4) NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:18:32

In reply to Re: louelsa Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

Nikki,
Could you examine the following so that we have a better understanding of the issue that is being discussed here? If you could, then I feel that I would be better able to communicate in his discusion with you.
http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7721.html
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7724.html
It appears to me that I have explained quite clearly my objection to the attempt by the administration to restrain :
[The rider said to me,... your God .. and you shall have no ohter Gods before me]
It appears quite prominatly to me that Dr.Bob is restraing me from the part that [I shall have no other Gods before me]and not the part that says [..I am your God..]
Now if he wanted to clarify this by stateing that I could say:
[The rider said to me, I am your God and you shall not have any other Gods before me] to be OK, then that could have appeared in his list, made after the posts in question were made, or in my case, going to be made, but I did not see that. In fact, there is another post by him stateing to another poster that it is the "imperitive" that he is restraing, not the "one God" part of the post that I want to post.
Dr. Bob could end this discussion now by saying that I can post:
[The Rider said to me, I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me] and that would end this discussion.
That is why I am asking Dr. Bob to clarify this. For the poster that posted [Jesus became our salvation for those that obey Him]was not restrained to say the "our" or the "obey Him" part of that post and I am askingfor him to post his rational that descrimintes between the two posts so that I can better discuss it in this discussion. As of now, I do not know why that post is acceptable to him on this board and that my post is not. If Your thinking that it is because there is some implication that I am saying that others have to beleive in my God is the reason, and I have made it clear in many posts that there is no deand by me to have others accept my God,then would not the post that says that[Jesus became OUR salvation to THOSE that OBEY Him] be also included in Your percption? If not, could you explain and clarify this so that I could have a better understanding of your position and be better able to communicate with you in this discussion?
Lou

 

Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:35:11

In reply to Lou's question toDr. Bob NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 7:24:39

Nikki,
Could you examine the following post? If you could, I feel that we would be better able to communicate in this discussion for the ppost exibites that I have clarified and that I have been asking Dr. Bob for his clarification.
http://www. dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7741.html
Lou

 

Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)Link Correction

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:38:38

In reply to Lou's question to Nikki's post (5), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:35:11

Nikki,
Below is the correcton to the link. Sorrry for the inconvienance,
Loi
http://dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7741.html

 

Lou's question to Nikki's post (6)Link Correction

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:11:25

In reply to Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)Link Correction, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:38:38

Nikki,
You wrote that [no one is descriminating against me].
That is a conclusion that You are making. But then you say that I can only post my post if I change the wording to something that is diffrent from what I heard, which is to give a false quote.Also, my post could be restrained on the grounds that the post puts down others. I am asking why one would ever think such a thing when the other post [Jesus became my salvation for those that obey Him]is deemed not to put down others. I am not saying in any way whatsoever that others are to believe in my God anymore that the poster that posted [Jesus became our salvation to all those tat obey Him] would be doing. That poster is not being told to change her post to read,[Jesus became some people's salvation to those that just want to say that they believe in Him]. Not so, for the quote that is cited comes from the poster's Word of God, her bible, and it says that obidiance to Jesus is [necessary] for [our] salvation ]
Now I do not see that the person that posted [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey him]is requirerd to make the same choice in other wordings that is different from her bible quote in order for that post to be posted. But I am restrained from posting my post as a quote from my Word of God,but I could post it if I give a false wording as condition to post my post.
So ,to me, I consider that Dr. Bob's rational has to be seen clearly , first, before any conclusion is made in that respect.
Lou



 

Re: louelsa

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:31:31

In reply to Re: louelsa Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

Nikkie,
You said that [it as nothing to do with you being a jew].
Now that is a conclusion that You are making. But if I was a member of Christiandom, I could post [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey him] without restraint. But I am jewish, and I want to post that the Rider said to me, who is The Word of God in my experiance, [I am your God and you shall have no other gods before me] and that post will be restrained.
I am asking for Dr. Bob to post his rational for this so that a conclusion could possibly be made about whether or not this has something to do with me being a jew. As of now, I do not beleive that your conclusion , or any other conclusion can be made untill Dr. Bob states his rational for allowing the one and then saying that he will restrain my post that is in question.
Lou

 

Lou's response to Nikki's post (7)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:50:48

In reply to Re: louelsa, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:31:31

Nikki,
You wrote that [....Dr. Bob..to please the masses...]
Are you saying that you know for a fact that Dr. Bob's rational to restrain my post is based on his ratioonal that only posts that please the masses will be accepted on this board? Is your statement in any way an attenpt to engender sympathy to be given to Dr. Bob because I want to post [The rider, who is the Wod of Gods in my experiance, said to me that [I am your God and you shall hve no other Gods before me]an dif I do that will be posting an unpopular beleif and it needs to be restrained to appease people tat hold to the popular belief?
If you could clarify that, then I will be better able to communicate with you in this discussion.
Lou

 

Lou's response to Nikki's post (8)

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 13:08:28

In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (7), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:50:48

Nikki,
You cited that The Rider said to him, "Only a fool in his heart says that there is no God."
You say that you are offeneded by that phrase, but the post says that the Rider said that to someone else, not to you and that this is a recounting of my experiance that I am telling as invited to do so by Dr. Bob. Are you saying that you ar not offended by the post that says [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him]? If so, could you clarify why you would be offended by the one and not the other? The post that says [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him] has the imperitve implication, as I see it, that people that believe in their heart that there is no God are not going to be saved, for just believing is not enough for salvation, for it is to {obey Jesus} that is connected with salvation in that post. And the "our", to me, inplies that the obeying is to be done by all to get salvation. Are you saying that the "our" does not include you, ? If so, then could you clarify who are the people that are implied to be in the (our salvation}? Could you clarify why you think that this post in question does not imply that others should also believe in Jesus to have salvation? My post never says that there is any connection to others at all, for the post is[The rider said to {Me}
that [I am {your} God and you shall have no other Gods before me.] The other post says [Jesus became OUR salvation to those that OBEY Him] and that appears to me to imply the implication that I am being accused of implyng.
In a previous post of yours, unless I am mistaken, you said that you believed in Jesus.
If you could clarify what you mean that you are offended by the biblical phrase from Psalm 14 that [the fool , in his heart says that there is no God],which has spiritual implications, not intellectual ones, yet you say that you believe in Jesus, then I could have a better understanding of what you mean by being offended, for it is my understanding that to believe in Jesus does mean that you believe in your heart that there IS a God,for he is represented as
The Son of God and thearfor in the family of God, and thearfor is God, in Christiandom as to what my understanding of Christaindom teachngs are. Are you saying that you beleive in Jesus , but you also do not believe in your heart that there is a God? If so, could you clarify that?
If you can clarify this, then I can have a better undestanding of this and be better able to communicate with you in this discussion. As of now, it is my understanding that most of Cristiandom , except for a few groups, states that God is a "trinity" and Jesus [is God according to popular Cristiandom doctrine] so that those that believe in Jesus, do believe in their heart that there is a God .
Now if you can clarify that, then I could be better able to communicate with you in this discussion. But, are you saying that you still do not believe in your heart that there is a God even though you state that you believe in Jesus?
Lou

 

*deep breath* here I goooooo.... Lou Pilder

Posted by SandraDee on October 28, 2002, at 13:59:17

In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (8), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 13:08:28

Lou,
I do not mean to speak for Nikki but perhaps I can help here.
You said:
Nikki,
You cited that The Rider said to him, "Only a fool in his heart says that there is no God."
You say that you are offeneded by that phrase, but the post says that the Rider said that to someone else, not to you and that this is a recounting of my experiance that I am telling as invited to do so by Dr. Bob. Are you saying that you ar not offended by the post that says [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him]? If so, could you clarify why you would be offended by the one and not the other? The post that says [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him] has the imperitve implication, as I see it, that people that believe in their heart that there is no God are not going to be saved, for just believing is not enough for salvation, for it is to {obey Jesus} that is connected with salvation in that post.

She has said (numerous times) that the reason one post bothers her and the other doesn't bother her as much is because in your post (even if it was meant to be from the rider to someone else) you called people that do not believe in God (in their hearts) FOOLS <--- note the key word there. That is what she objected to (in my opinion). I guess it didn't bother me so much, because I do believe in God, but I can certainly see how it would be a put-down or offend those that do not know Him.
I do not wish to get involved in this uproar, however I feel for Nikki and her efforts to get through to you - for I have also been in that position. I am not opposed to you posting, nor am I telling you that you need to re-word what you say. What I am suggesting is omitting the posts that you think will be a put-down (such as the "fools" post). I think the rules have been made much clearer, I hope that you will soon feel this way also.
Peace be with you.

 

Lou's response to Nikki's post (9) NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 14:07:45

In reply to Re: louelsa Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 6:43:45

Nikki,
You wrote that [I am still answering the same argument].
What this discussion concerns is , as I see it, is a discussion that is asking Dr. Bob, by me, to state his rational for the restraining of my post,which is:
[The Rider, who is The Word of God in my experiance, said to me, I am your God and you shall have no other Gods before me]
and then allowing the other poster's post that says [Jesus became our salvation to those that obey Him] andthat I have not seen his rational clearly and I am asking him to state it so that I could understand why one post is accepted and my post is not OK. If I recieve a clear answer to the clarification that I have requested, then this discussion could reach a conclusion. I do not see a clear rational ,yet, and I have told you why it is not clear to me . I also have posted that I would not accept the offer of writing something that I was not told, for that would cause me to break anothe commandment to me by my God and I have posted that in this discussion. I have also posted that my post does not pressure others or put down others, as I will be accused of if I post the post in question, bcause the other poster's post has not been deemed to pressure others or put down others and I have posted my explinations for that, and I am asking for clarification as to why I will be subjected to such an accusation and the other poster has not been. If this becomes clarified, then the discussion could end.
Lou
I have posted the concept of "Ex Post Facto" and why the United Staes Constitution says that that concept is unconstitutional.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/lexicon/ex_post_facto.htm
Lou

 

Re: *deep breath* here I goooooo.... SandraDee

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 14:32:53

In reply to *deep breath* here I goooooo.... Lou Pilder, posted by SandraDee on October 28, 2002, at 13:59:17

Sandra Dee,
Thank you for your interest in this discussion.
The major discussion now is [not] about the verse in Psalm 14, but about that I will be restrained from posting:
[The Rider, who is the word of God in my experiance, said to me ,..I am your God... you shall have no other Gods before me] and that the post [Jesus became our salvation to all those that obey Him]was not restrained.
I am responding, also, to Dr. Bob's invitation to discuss this for he wants us to discuss what we think about the opening page for the faith board could include in its guide to post. that invitation is a good one and I beleive in open discussion and I am glad that you are present in this discusson and I thank you for your particpaton
Lou


 

Re: Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:49:28

In reply to Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 8:25:06

Lou.

You would not falsey be reporting your prophet. or is this more important to you than taking into account the feelings of other people??

There is a difference in thos etwo postings.

Your's is saying that everyone should believe in him

the other is saying that you will get salvation if you believe in him. I don't believe in salvation, so I don't ask for it, and don't care whether I get it.

Your many many posts imply that I am a lesser person for not believing i him. That is where the difference lies.

Nikki

 

Re: Lou's response to Nikki'spost (4) Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:53:37

In reply to Lou's response to Nikki'spost (4) NikkiT2, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:18:32

[The rider said to me, I am your God and you shall not have any other Gods before me] - yes, I find that acceptable.

I know that you're talking about yourself in your posts, and I know that you mean that the rider talks only to you.
But not everyone reads ALL of your posts, and not everyone is of the same level of intelligence as I am.

I just feel it would be easier all round if you made it clear in EACH post that the rider was talking just to you.
How about a disclaimer at the top of the post along the lines of "All words said by the rider in the this are directed towards me (Lou) and no one else"

Nikki

 

Lou's respons to Nikki's new post NikkiT2

Posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 14:55:14

In reply to Re: Lou's respons to Nikki's ost (3) Lou Pilder, posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:49:28

Nikki,
You say that [I would not {falsly} be reporting your prophet]
I am sorry, but I would be falsly reporting if I reported somethng other than what I heard.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)Link Correction Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:55:32

In reply to Lou's question to Nikki's post (5)Link Correction, posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 10:38:38

Again Lou. it is all in the wording.

 

Re: Lou's response to Nikki's post (7) Lou Pilder

Posted by NikkiT2 on October 28, 2002, at 14:59:01

In reply to Lou's response to Nikki's post (7), posted by Lou Pilder on October 28, 2002, at 11:50:48

I know nothung of Dr Bobs rational. I was just giving my opinion Lou. I thought I made that clear in my post.

I have now said quite a few times why I thought the post about jesus and salvation was ok to me, but not yours.

I am not going to continue to repeat the same thing time and time again.

Nikki


Go forward in thread:


Show another thread

URL of post in thread:


Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ


[dr. bob] 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.