Re: lower block length

Posted by Dr. Bob on October 1, 2010, at 20:56:31

In reply to Re: lower block length, posted by muffled on September 6, 2010, at 12:18:24

> I suppose that unless it's a recurring behavior, I'd be ok with no block.
>
> Dinah
> My view is that there are issues here that have me lean to a {no block} at all here.
>
> Lou
> No block at all would be my preferance. Just let it go.
>
> muffled
I let a couple go when I was out of town and couldn't keep up. FYI, the guideline in the FAQ is:
> If I missed the post and it's already been archived, I may just let it go.
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforce
Bob
a brilliant and reticent Web mastermind -- The New York Times
backpedals well -- PartlyCloudy

Thread

Where is Lou? topcatclr 8/30/10
...
Re: (((Dinah))) I'm asking for clarity..... » 64Bowtie Dinah 8/31/10
Re: Re: (((Dinah))) 64Bowtie 9/1/10
:) » 64Bowtie Dinah 9/1/10
Lou's request-izwhatihtiz » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 9/1/10
Lou explains what he thinks could be done- Lou Pilder 9/1/10
Re: blocked for 6 weeks » topcatclr Dr. Bob 9/4/10
Re: blocked for 6 weeks » Dr. Bob Dinah 9/4/10
Re: blocked for 6 weeks muffled 9/5/10
Re: lower block length Dr. Bob 9/5/10
Re: lower block length » Dr. Bob Dinah 9/5/10
Lou's views-ehvree » Dr. Bob Lou Pilder 9/5/10
Re: lower block length muffled 9/6/10
Re: lower block length Dr. Bob 10/1/10

Post a new follow-up

[964441]

Notify the administrators

Start a new thread

poster:Dr. Bob thread:960581
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20100907/msgs/964441.html

	for
in