Psycho-Babble Administration Thread 1075295

Shown: posts 27 to 51 of 51. Go back in thread:

 

Lou's reply-pstill burning ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36

In reply to Re: Lou's reply to ed and friends-histrclheyt Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 18:56:08

> >...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...
> >others, can post here even more insults to Judaism and Jews with impunity
>
> Are you suggesting no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism? I do not see any evidence that Judaism was insulted. That is entirely your interpretation, which appears to be profoundly skewed in the direction of seeing insults where none exist.
>
> No doubt... some Jews do love money. Some Christians love money too. Some Muslims love money. Some non-believers love money. Jesus was, presumably, suggesting that it is not a good thing to love money. Although this part of the Bible may have been used to incite hatred against Jews at some points in time, I see no evidence whatsoever that that applies in this instance.
>
> >could allow some readers to feel that Judaism is being insulted here as being supportive
>
> That would be a stretch...
>
> >in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole and arouse hatred toward the Jews
>
> I seriously doubt Dr. Bob would find it acceptable to arouse hatred against anyone. Although I cannot speak for him, the issue seems to be that Dr. Bob simply doesn't believe that any hatred was aroused. I would agree with that sentiment.

ed,
You cited the statement in question:
[...disgusted at *their* love for money when so many people went without...].
Then you wrote,[...are you suggesting that no one should be able to mention that part of the Bible for fear of inciting anti-Semitism?
Let there be no misunderstanding here. The passage in the Bible is not posted. It is the poster's interpretation of the passage that is in question here. This means that readers that know of the passage, (actually there is more than one passage) are one set of readers, and there are those that search for the passage and examine it, and there are readers that are ignorant of the passage along with other subsets of readers.
As to if one could cite the passage here without arousing anti-Semitic feelings, that could depend on the context of the citation being used and for what purpose as it could be seen. Here, the poster writes about {*their* love for money}. The people could be the Jews to the subset of readers that know of the passage that the poster says to think of involving the money changers. But what the poster writes is {their love for money when so many went without}. It is that statement by the poster that readers could see as supportive and will be good in Mr. Hsiung's thinking for the community as a whole because it stands un repudiated by Mr. Hsiung. It is how Jews could be depicted by the statement in the minds of a subset of readers that think the people in question are Jews.
The passage does not use that language to say that Jesus was disgusted at their love for money. That is what the poster wrote and got it from some place, and many Christiandom groups purport that what the poster wrote is in their doctrines and depict Jews as in the following..
see: [ admin, 428781 ]
The statement could mean to a subset of readers that the people in the subset of {their}, in {their love for money,} are being shown in contempt and insulting their character as the poster writes that {*Jesus* was disgusted at their love for money} That part being allowed to be seen here as supportive could arouse anti-Semitic feelings to those readers that think that the people in the set of {their}, in {their love for money}, were Jews. That could be defaming to Jews and insulting to Jews to attribute the intent of those Jews to be motivated by the love for money. The passage could lead to stereotyping Jews as *Jesus* is said by the poster to be disgusted at *their* love for money, even though the passage does not contain that language.
I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here, due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung. But the poster can post his interpretation of the passage, that IMHO could cost the lives of some readers here and the lives of innocent Jews throughout the world that could become victims of anti-Semitic terrorists that could see the statement as by a psychiatrist that it will be good for his community as a whole in his thinking to have it seen as civil. Jewish centers and temples could be attacked. You see, one match can start a forest fire. The statement by the poster in question could be thought by some to be a flame. And the flame could induce embers that spread like the wind through the internet to homes all over the world. I see more than that in the poster's post. For he says that justice is somehow involved in the statement in question. Hummmmmmmmmmmm
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-pstill burning Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 21:15:22

In reply to Lou's reply-pstill burning ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36

>I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here

Ok, could you post the Biblical passage in question instead?

 

Re: Lou's reply-pstill burning Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 21:37:15

In reply to Lou's reply-pstill burning ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 20:53:36

I replied to your post below with a link to some music. I lot of Handel's music uses themes from the Old Testament. I hope you like it.

>*Jesus* was disgusted at *their* love for money

Now here's a question for you. Do you think Jesus should be disgusted by love of money? Might you feel disgusted by love of money?

>And the flame could induce embers that spread like the wind through the internet to homes all over the world. I see more than that in the poster's post. For he says that justice is somehow involved in the statement in question.

I'm no Biblical scholar, but doesn't the justice you're discussing refer to the redistribution of money? ie. certainly not the harming of Jews in any way.

 

Lou's reply-lytoflyph ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 21:42:34

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-pstill burning Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 21:15:22

> >I am prevented from posting my repudiation of the statement in the manner that I think could save lives here
>
> Ok, could you post the Biblical passage in question instead?

ed,
One could do a search and see it in 4 books.
But in order to understand the meaning of the passage, if they are ignorant of second-temple Judaism, they could be led astray.
It has been revealed to me meaning of what is in the passages and if I was allowed to post what has been revealed to me here, I think that lives could be saved, people could be healed, an could have a new life and sing a new song.
You see, the passages are about the Temple. And the Temple was for those from all over the Earth to come and pray. People today come to a wall left of the Temple. This praying could bring light to those there as in the beginning, God said, "Let there be light." And the light shines to dispel the darkness. And in these prayers, a light could shine in the hearts of those praying in the Temple to give light of The Glory Of God, illuminating the minds of those praying, revealing The World to Come.
One can come to the Temple today, even though it has been destroyed. Even if they can not go to Jerusalem. And the money changers were doing a service. The people selling doves were doing a service. This involved sacrifice. This involved a payment. I have come here to show readers that sacrifice and that payment so that the light of God could shine in your hearts and it could be revealed to you to be healed and be a new creation and return to the Greenfields, that you used to know.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-lytoflyph Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 22:07:22

In reply to Lou's reply-lytoflyph ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 14, 2015, at 21:42:34

>One could do a search and see it in 4 books.

True :) I was wondering which version and translation you prefer.

>if I was allowed to post what has been revealed to me here, I think that lives could be saved...

What is the source of this revelation? And what would happen if you were to post it here?

>people could be healed, an could have a new life and sing a new song...

If that is the case, would it not be the right thing to post it?

>And the money changers were doing a service. The people selling doves were doing a service. This involved sacrifice. This involved a payment.

I understand, I think. I've looked at some translations of the passage online. Was Jesus saying that trade should not happen inside the temple? Not that trade was bad?

 

Re: thanks (nm) JayOriginal2nd

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 15, 2015, at 20:39:04

In reply to Hey this is Jay_Original1, posted by JayOriginal2nd on January 20, 2015, at 10:47:53

 

Lou's reply- ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 9:42:40

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-lytoflyph Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 14, 2015, at 22:07:22

> >One could do a search and see it in 4 books.
>
> True :) I was wondering which version and translation you prefer.
>
> >if I was allowed to post what has been revealed to me here, I think that lives could be saved...
>
> What is the source of this revelation? And what would happen if you were to post it here?
>
> >people could be healed, an could have a new life and sing a new song...
>
> If that is the case, would it not be the right thing to post it?
>
> >And the money changers were doing a service. The people selling doves were doing a service. This involved sacrifice. This involved a payment.
>
> I understand, I think. I've looked at some translations of the passage online. Was Jesus saying that trade should not happen inside the temple? Not that trade was bad?
>
ed,
You wrote,[...I understand, I think...]
There is a great volume of understanding in the passage in question. But for me to post here what has been revealed to me concerning what is in the passage, is prohibited to me to post here due to the prohibitions posted to me here by Mr. Hsiung.
I will ask you ,though, to examine the passages and see if you can find any statement to the claims by the poster that substantiate, let's say, that[... Jesus was disgusted at their love for money when so many went without...] that I am asking for him to post answers to my questions to him and determine for yourself if I have a rational basis to object to the statement in question being allowed to be seen here as supportive and that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking it will be good for this community as a whole to allow it to be continually seen as civil here by those readers that have seen Mr. Hsiung's post that being supportive takes precedence and for members to be civil at all times in that the statement by the poster could arouse anti-Semitic feelings here.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faith/20101230/msgs/996847.html

 

:) Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 14:09:05

In reply to Lou's reply- ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 9:42:40

Hello,

Thanks for your reply.

>see if you can find any statement to the claims by the poster that substantiate, let's say, that [... Jesus was disgusted at their love for money when so many went without...]

I'll try to examine it. Translations differ but I've read several online, with interest.

In the New American Standard Bible, Matthew 21:12-13 it says...

'And Jesus entered the temple and drove out all those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the money changers and the seats of those who were selling doves. And He said to them, "It is written, 'my house shall be called a house of prayer'; but you are making it a robber's den."

It seems to me that Jesus was very unhappy, perhaps disgusted, that the temple was being used as a place of trade. There is an implication that the tradesmen were profiteering at others expense: they are variably referred to as robbers, or thieves - depending on the translation. A robbing tradesman presumably has a love for money, no?

I can see why you might find this passage anti-Semitic, since the tradesmen are thought to be Jews. I do, however, think you're looking at the original poster's statements from the wrong angle. I don't have any sense that he was being anti-Semitic at all. Instead, I feel he was drawing attention to Jesus' work in favour of the poor. This is what I meant by positive.

 

Lou's reply-geramyah ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 14:46:18

In reply to :) Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 14:09:05

ed,
You now see one version of the scene that the poster want to use to write what he wrote.
But let us look closely.
Notice that Jesus quotes a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use. For He says, 'It is written". He is not calling anyone anything here in this passage. The scripture quoted is in reference to a Hebrew word that has been translated "robbers" in the KJV but the passage can take on a different meaning than the one that is popularly stated as you say a Jew could see that the popular translation could be considered by Jews to be anti-Semitic.
I would like to explain the Hebrew translation from the passage quoted which could show a revelation here.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-geramyah Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 15:10:41

In reply to Lou's reply-geramyah ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 14:46:18

>Notice that Jesus quotes a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use. For He says, 'It is written".

A quote from the Old Testament, that the temple should be a place of worship?

>He is not calling anyone anything here in this passage.

Do you feel the words robbers and thieves are an incorrect translation?

>as you say a Jew could see that the popular translation could be considered by Jews to be anti-Semitic

I can see that. But, do you think it's an attack on Judaism, or rather an attack on the specific activity of trade inside the temple? ie. not an attack on Judaism at all.

>I would like to explain the Hebrew translation from the passage quoted which could show a revelation here.

Do you know of a better translation? I looked at various translations online but they all seemed fairly similar.

Thanks Lou.

 

Lou's reply-seedovrevel ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 18:11:34

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-geramyah Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 15:10:41

> >Notice that Jesus quotes a verse from the scriptures that the Jews use. For He says, 'It is written".
>
> A quote from the Old Testament, that the temple should be a place of worship?
>
> >He is not calling anyone anything here in this passage.
>
> Do you feel the words robbers and thieves are an incorrect translation?
>
> >as you say a Jew could see that the popular translation could be considered by Jews to be anti-Semitic
>
> I can see that. But, do you think it's an attack on Judaism, or rather an attack on the specific activity of trade inside the temple? ie. not an attack on Judaism at all.
>
> >I would like to explain the Hebrew translation from the passage quoted which could show a revelation here.
>
> Do you know of a better translation? I looked at various translations online but they all seemed fairly similar.
>
> Thanks Lou.

ed,
You wrote,[...But do you think...].
It has been revealed to me the mysteries of what is in the passages. And if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here, I think that there could be a groundswell of people awaking here to be led out of their troubling suffering and into a new realm of peace. You see, the passages reveal that many here are like in a troubled sea, a raging sea, tossed to and fro. The passage reveals the way to a sea of glass where the storm is stilled. Those that know the revelation can be led to the still waters. They could return to the green fields, where rivers calmly run. Gone could be the dark clouds and one could see the flowers kissed by the sun.
What is in the revelation is a seed. A seed of deliverance, a deliverance from the raging sea.
The seed can fall on dry ground though. The seed can be snatched away by an evil one, robbing those the opportunity to have the seed implanted in them. And the seed can fall on good ground to those that understand and they could bring forth good fruit.
This revelation comes from a Rider on a white horse, that said to me, "Lou, my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.
For as the rain comes down and the snow from heaven and does not return there, but waters the earth, and makes it bring forth and bud, that it may give seed to the sower and bread to the eater.
So shall my word be that goes forth out of my mouth. It shall not return to me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing where I sent it.
For you shall go out with joy and be led forth with peace; the mountains and the hills shall break forth before you into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands."
Lou



 

Re: Lou's reply-seedovrevel Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 18:34:10

In reply to Lou's reply-seedovrevel ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 16, 2015, at 18:11:34

Lou, it sounds like a very beautiful revelation. Did it come to you in a vision?

>if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here...

Where does Dr. Bob say that you're not permitted? I do not see why he would object.

 

Lou's reply-phowndheyshunovheyt ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 6:37:41

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-seedovrevel Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 18:34:10

> Lou, it sounds like a very beautiful revelation. Did it come to you in a vision?
>
> >if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here...
>
> Where does Dr. Bob say that you're not permitted? I do not see why he would object.

ed,
You wrote,[...I do not see why he (Mr. Hsiung) would object...].
The objection posted by Mr. Hsiung concerns that I am prohibited by him to post here the revelation to me as it comes from a Jewish perspective involving the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me. The historical record shows what has happened to communities as countries that have done the same to Jews. This may give you more understanding of what you could read in my discussion here with Mr. Hsiung.
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-phowndheyshunovheyt Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 17, 2015, at 15:25:46

In reply to Lou's reply-phowndheyshunovheyt ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 6:37:41

>I am prohibited by him to post here the revelation to me as it comes from a Jewish perspective involving the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me.

Hi Lou,

I'm fairly sure you can post anything as long as it's civil.

 

Lou's reply-1055107 ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 18:44:48

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-seedovrevel Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 16, 2015, at 18:34:10

> Lou, it sounds like a very beautiful revelation. Did it come to you in a vision?
>
> >if I was permitted by Mr. Hsiung to post the revelation here...
>
> Where does Dr. Bob say that you're not permitted? I do not see why he would object.

ed,
Here is a post that I would like for you to read and it has the way to find the post in question (7968). To see this post go to the bottom of this page and type in the search box:
[admin, 1055107 ].
the 1055107 is in the colored strip URL, not the subject line
Lou

 

Re: Lou's reply-1055107 Lou Pilder

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 17, 2015, at 21:30:19

In reply to Lou's reply-1055107 ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 17, 2015, at 18:44:48

Thanks, I've read the thread. You're not specifically prohibited from posting anything Lou.

 

Lou's reply- [admin, 7968 ] ed_uk2010

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2015, at 8:51:27

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-1055107 Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 17, 2015, at 21:30:19

> Thanks, I've read the thread. You're not specifically prohibited from posting anything Lou.
>
>
ed,
You wrote,[...you're not....]
I am unsure as to what you want readers to think by that. If you could post answers to the following, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
True or False:
A. I read the post,[ admin, 7968 ], Lou
B. I will read it now, if I did not read it already and post answers to your questions that follow.
C. I do see, Lou, that there is a prohibition posted to you in [admin,7968 ]
Lou

 

Re: prohibitions

Posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 1:21:52

In reply to Re: Lou's reply-1055107 Lou Pilder, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 17, 2015, at 21:30:19

> Thanks, I've read the thread. You're not specifically prohibited from posting anything Lou.

I think he is. But I don't have the URL(s) handy.

Bob

 

these the only prohibitions I can recall to Lou Dr. Bob

Posted by 10derheart on February 19, 2015, at 18:03:56

In reply to Re: prohibitions, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 1:21:52

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120202/msgs/1009990.html

No posting about Nazis or the Holocuast??

...which came out of one prohibiting posts about Nazis 4 years prior:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/808967.html

If not, then I'm clueless.

I do seem to vaguely remember a problem with posting about the vision of the Rider, but if it's separate from this topic, I don't know.

 

Lou's response-iphithapndtuyu 10derheart

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2015, at 18:49:06

In reply to these the only prohibitions I can recall to Lou Dr. Bob, posted by 10derheart on February 19, 2015, at 18:03:56

> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20120202/msgs/1009990.html
>
> No posting about Nazis or the Holocuast??
>
> ...which came out of one prohibiting posts about Nazis 4 years prior:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20071106/msgs/808967.html
>
> If not, then I'm clueless.
>
> I do seem to vaguely remember a problem with posting about the vision of the Rider, but if it's separate from this topic, I don't know.
>
> 10,
You wrote,[...the only prohibitions I can recall..].
Have you not been aware of:
[admin, 7968 ]?
I am trying to let readers understand the restraints that I am under here. I was wondering if you would try to if it happened to you.
Lou

 

Re: prohibitions Dr. Bob

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2015, at 20:48:18

In reply to Re: prohibitions, posted by Dr. Bob on February 19, 2015, at 1:21:52

>I think he is. But I don't have the URL(s) handy.

Thanks Bob, I looked but I couldn't find them either. I suppose there has been many posts.

 

Re: Lou's reply- [admin, 7968 ]

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2015, at 20:50:02

In reply to Lou's reply- [admin, 7968 ] ed_uk2010, posted by Lou Pilder on February 18, 2015, at 8:51:27

I did read the thread. I didn't see any prohibitions. Perhaps I looked at the wrong bit.

 

Re: Lou's response-iphithapndtuyu

Posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2015, at 20:50:59

In reply to Lou's response-iphithapndtuyu 10derheart, posted by Lou Pilder on February 19, 2015, at 18:49:06

You'll need to post the URL to help us out Lou.

Thanks.

 

thx Lou. I will post the URL ed_uk2010

Posted by 10derheart on February 19, 2015, at 22:25:19

In reply to Re: Lou's response-iphithapndtuyu, posted by ed_uk2010 on February 19, 2015, at 20:50:59

I believe Lou believes he is following Dr. Bob's directive to the *absolute* letter by not posting even a link to the URL where the prohibition was made - over 12 years ago - because that would, technically, be posting a link to the statement which was prohibited, and which Dr. Bob does say would result in a block if Lou posted it again.

Sigh. Even if only for the purpose of a new discussion here, Lou does not think he is permitted to do it. And I do understand that POV.

Me? Well, I don't give a flippin' damn :-) So, here you go:

http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20020918/msgs/7968.html

Hope it helps.

ed_uk...you have the patience of a saint. Admirable, seriously.

 

Lou's response- diadvan 10derheart

Posted by Lou Pilder on February 21, 2015, at 10:23:42

In reply to thx Lou. I will post the URL ed_uk2010, posted by 10derheart on February 19, 2015, at 22:25:19

Friends,
If you have seen the prohibition to me in the post that I am responding to here, notice that it is one of the prohibitions that prevent me from posting my own repudiation to anti-Semitic propaganda posted here with impunity. The fact that those statements that I am in discussion with Mr. Hsiung for him to post a repudiation to can be seen as supportive here and that in Mr. Hsiung's thinking will be good for this community as a whole, could go on and on because the prohibition to me disadvantages me and allows anti-Semitic hate to be seen here by a psychiatrist and up to 6 deputies that could create IMHO and develop what could be thought to be being validated by them which then could create a community of acceptance for hatred of Jews by creating what could be considered to be socially acceptable here by the fact that what Mr. Hsiung allows is in his thinking what will be good for this community as a whole. This could be spread like a forest fire through the internet that could create a foundation for real-world hate and violence toward Jews.
I would like for you to look at [admin,428781] and to know that I would need to post what is prohibited here to me in order for me to post a repudiation in what I need to post to do so. And as that post and many others stand so they could be thought to be supportive and good in some way that will improve this community, I say to you that as long as anti-Semitic propaganda is allowed here to be seen as supportive, young people reading here could be persuaded and be misled to think that hatred toward the Jews will be good for them, since Mr. Hsiung says that allowing the hate to be seen here as civil, will be good for his community as a whole. Since I can not inform readers as I need to due to the prohibitions, readers could be un informed from my perspective, which comes from a Jewish perspective as the foundation of Judaism as revealed to me that by the prohibition in question prohibits. And it's so easy to persuade the un informed. It's so easy.
In my discussion with ed concerning the scene at the temple, again the prohibition prevents me from showing what iMHO could save lives here by the nature that you could see what has been revealed to me.
Mr. Hsiung promises and wants you to trust him that sometime in the future, by him allowing the antisemitic propaganda here to be seen a supportive, this community will be, I guess, improved. That argument is used by him to justify him doing it. And that argument has been used to justify slavery, infanticide discrimination and genocide. He wants you to trust him even though anti-Semitic hate could be allowed to stand here. The prohibitions to me could also be found in the historical record analogous to this situation that I find myself here, for it is nothing new. It is an old system that can be found in European fascism that was defeated many years ago that is as I see being resurrected here from the dead. And as long as it is allowed, you could become victims of hate, for hate begets hate as psychologist write about. That, my friends, could keep you from being supported, and I'm so sorry , my friends.
Lou


This is the end of the 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.