![[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 special_k on April 18, 2006, at 8:55:13
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess., posted by ClearSkies on April 18, 2006, at 7:59:53
I have sympathy with how they are intended to work too. I guess I just worry that there are some blocks that don't seem to have the intended effect. But then... I guess it depends on how you characterise the intended effect...
Could be to protect posters from future incivilities.
Works to do that in the sense that the poster is prevented from posting for a time. May not work to do that in the sense that the poster might not continue with future incivilities in that time at any rate.
Could prevent future incivilities in the sense that the poster takes the blocking seriously and tried to avoid future infractions. Could not work to do that in the sense that the poster might not understand how to avoid future incivilities. Could not work to do that in the sense that the poster might be annoyed at the blocking and hence be motivated to future incivilities out of frustration etc.
Re other posters learning vicariously... Hard to say about that too. Other posters might be motivated to avoid blockings. Other posters might continue because they don't understand what they have to do. Other posters might be prompted to be more uncivil than they would have been out of frustration / fear.
How to weigh... How to weigh...
> > You haven't really had admin action
> > I dare say a blocking or two would change your mind.
> > I dare say it would.I should qualify that. If you didn't understand what you had to do to avoid future incivilities and / or if you thought the blocking was unfair / you didn't understand / you didn't think it was justified in which case... It could make the situation worse. It could change your mind.
> I've been PBC'd and blocked. Although it was really upsetting since I was in a fever pitch (no surprise) by the time the block was issued, that subsided after a while.
Okay. So you understood what you did wrong and it gave you a cooling off period. Best case re blocks. Sometimes that works. Sure. But all cases? And do the best cases justify the bad cases or do the bad cases justify a revision in the blocking system?
I think they do.
But maybe I am biased by my experience
(And ironically enough I guess my experience is used / can be used to discredit me. To discredit my opinion. But it has been expressed before... And will be again no doubt. And will blocking me aid or hinder that process? Hard to weigh... Hard to weigh...)
> For me, blocks are not something that scare me, but having been blocked made me realise that if I wanted to continue getting support and gather education from this site, that I'd better follow the rules.And if that is within your power sure.
If you don't understand what you did wrong
If you thought your blocking was unjustified
(Or that the length of your blocking was unjustified)
Then you might have a different response...I'm just trying to get it on the table
That how they are intended to work is one thing...
And how they do in actual fact work (if in actual fact they do work) is another...
And I want to get it on the table that there are alternative ways of doing things.And maybe it is time to comprimise...
I think it is.
That's all. I'm just trying to get that out there.
Not so much with the clear cut cases.
But with the more 'borderline' ones.As eg's of borderline cases...
Declan.
The poster who was blocked for posting a link where that link had another link to a site where you could obtain illegal meds (there is ambiguity as to whether you are responsible to links from sites you link to or not)
Muffled's block on writing for swearing unasterisked
My warning / blocking for expressing opposition to the US idealThose kindsa cases.
That could be better dealt with via explanations and blockings when they persist.
Or with asking for clarification.
Or with acknowledging a distinction between critiquing books and ideals and critiquing persons who post to the boards.That is all I'm trying to say.
Sorry if I offended you Dinah.
I never meant to.
Posted by Dinah on April 18, 2006, at 9:02:22
In reply to Re: Blocks should be a private administrative matt » greywolf, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 21:47:00
I sort of realized in the middle of the night that the first sentence might have sounded sarcastic. And wanted to clarify that no sarcasm was intended and I apologize if it sounded that way.
Sometimes it's hard to say things in writing to make sure they come out the way they are in your head. No tone of voice, facial expression, or body language.
Posted by special_k on April 18, 2006, at 9:18:32
In reply to Blocks should be a private administrative matter, posted by greywolf on April 17, 2006, at 21:05:05
> I suggest that the debate about blocking policies is unresolvable, as has been emphatically demonstrated recently.
The point that it has not been solved yet... Doesn't show that it is unresolvable.
Life wasn't explained for a number of years...
Reproduction...
The nature of mind...
We can of course give up. But that is what it is. Giving up. And progress could be made... But it never will be if people give up.
> I recommend that this site follow the same blocking procedure adopted by other posting sites: if you're blocked, that's between you and the site admin. You can appeal all you want, and you can have others weigh in with their support, but it is a PRIVATE matter not open to debate on the boards.And if people insist on posting about it then they shall be blocked or their posts shall be moved to the trash? I would leave if this site turned into that. IMHO that is the tactic of someone who can't justify their decisions. I would leave.
> While it is admirable that blocking policies may be debated ad nauseum on the Admin Board...Now this is an issue that I would be careful to observe the three posts limit on... If people stop posting to the topic then I shall stop. If people keep talking about it... Then so shall I. People do tend to drop issues (legitimate issues) like hotcakes after someone gets a blocking. Like how people disperse after the cops show up. People can be fickle like that (not a criticism just an observation).
>I think that the number, length, and intensity of these debates may be undermining the point of the civility policy. From what I see, these recent debates have started to create bad feelings, both interpersonally and regarding certain boards.
I think there have been bad feelings re this issue for a while now. And not just in me. This is a recurrent issue. I've just decided to bring it back on the agenda. But of course I didn't do that all by myself. There has been a lot of input from others as well. And IMHO that is a good thing.
If you are finding the discussion unpleasant you can of course choose to stop reading and return to pleasantries over on social or wherever... I can't make you read. And I don't intend to make you read. It is up to you.
> I recommend that the best policy is wholly private handling of blocking disputes.I have seen that work (rather badly IMHO at other boards).
And it hasn't always been able to be observed.
ie sometimes everyone / most people seem to go off and issues do need to be addressed publicly. This way saves sending similar responses to everyone. Also keeps everything above board re consistency etc.
Posted by greywolf on April 18, 2006, at 10:14:13
In reply to Re: Blocks should be a private administrative matt, posted by Dinah on April 18, 2006, at 9:02:22
> I sort of realized in the middle of the night that the first sentence might have sounded sarcastic. And wanted to clarify that no sarcasm was intended and I apologize if it sounded that way.
>
> Sometimes it's hard to say things in writing to make sure they come out the way they are in your head. No tone of voice, facial expression, or body language.
No sarcasm was sensed on my end. I enjoy reading your posts.
Posted by greywolf on April 18, 2006, at 10:58:49
In reply to Re: Blocks should be a private administrative matter » greywolf, posted by special_k on April 18, 2006, at 9:18:32
> > I suggest that the debate about blocking policies is unresolvable, as has been emphatically demonstrated recently.
>
> The point that it has not been solved yet... Doesn't show that it is unresolvable.
> Life wasn't explained for a number of years...
> Reproduction...
> The nature of mind...
> We can of course give up. But that is what it is. Giving up. And progress could be made... But it never will be if people give up.
>
> > I recommend that this site follow the same blocking procedure adopted by other posting sites: if you're blocked, that's between you and the site admin. You can appeal all you want, and you can have others weigh in with their support, but it is a PRIVATE matter not open to debate on the boards.
>
> And if people insist on posting about it then they shall be blocked or their posts shall be moved to the trash? I would leave if this site turned into that. IMHO that is the tactic of someone who can't justify their decisions. I would leave.
>
> > While it is admirable that blocking policies may be debated ad nauseum on the Admin Board...
>
> Now this is an issue that I would be careful to observe the three posts limit on... If people stop posting to the topic then I shall stop. If people keep talking about it... Then so shall I. People do tend to drop issues (legitimate issues) like hotcakes after someone gets a blocking. Like how people disperse after the cops show up. People can be fickle like that (not a criticism just an observation).
>
> >I think that the number, length, and intensity of these debates may be undermining the point of the civility policy. From what I see, these recent debates have started to create bad feelings, both interpersonally and regarding certain boards.
>
> I think there have been bad feelings re this issue for a while now. And not just in me. This is a recurrent issue. I've just decided to bring it back on the agenda. But of course I didn't do that all by myself. There has been a lot of input from others as well. And IMHO that is a good thing.
>
> If you are finding the discussion unpleasant you can of course choose to stop reading and return to pleasantries over on social or wherever... I can't make you read. And I don't intend to make you read. It is up to you.
>
> > I recommend that the best policy is wholly private handling of blocking disputes.
>
> I have seen that work (rather badly IMHO at other boards).
>
> And it hasn't always been able to be observed.
>
> ie sometimes everyone / most people seem to go off and issues do need to be addressed publicly. This way saves sending similar responses to everyone. Also keeps everything above board re consistency etc.
>
>
Special K,I agree with many of your points, I disagree with some, and I am occasionally uncomfortable with the way some of those points are made. However, it's never a big deal, and I generally enjoy reading what you write.
The main difference I see between your view of blocking and mine is that I lean toward accepting errors and/or arbitrariness by admins and mods simply because, after posting on boards for about 6 years now, I am not aware of a common ground that makes everyone happy. The best system I can conceive is one that allows the person blocked a full and fair opportunity to appeal that block, and to have others offer their opinions for or against the discipline.
Personally, I think that such a system works best when it is administered essentially privately (meaning, the block and the reasons for it are not kept secret, but any resolution of it is done behind closed doors). Public discussions of blocks can become contentious at times and, if you're a person like me who sometimes can't help frequently scanning the boards you're interested in (hello OCD!), constantly running into unhappiness created by blocking controversies can create an unhappy atmosphere within the site as a whole.
I know, I know--I should be able to just avoid these threads if they bring me down. Yeah, just like I should be able to turn the light off without flicking the switch 5 times.
Those are just my general thoughts. I hope I've expressed them inoffensively.
Greywolf
Posted by AuntieMel on April 18, 2006, at 14:05:21
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess. » ClearSkies, posted by special_k on April 18, 2006, at 8:55:13
"My warning / blocking for expressing opposition to the US ideal
"Since you mentioned that I wasn't offended. You are correct that I was not offended by the statement you made that got the block.
But I do feel bothered, though I'm not sure if it's hurt, annoyance or what, by statememts like this.
There are US policies that I oppose and there are some I agree with. But when I feel that they are all being lumped together as one, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend my country - even when I agree with some of the points you make.The only things I would call our "ideals" are the same things that have people beating down the door to get here: reward for hard work, opportunity and freedom.
The rest is just details. And it seems that as hard as I try I just can't seem to show you the difference.
Posted by special_k on April 18, 2006, at 16:42:35
In reply to Re: Well, since you asked » special_k, posted by AuntieMel on April 18, 2006, at 14:05:21
> But I do feel bothered, though I'm not sure if it's hurt, annoyance or what, by statememts like this.
the statment appeared in the context of a post. and in that post i clarified 1) what i took the american ideal to be (that gives you the chance to go aha you have simply misunderstood it / misdescribed it / etc) and 2) why i was opposed to it (on justice considerations and i specified what i considered to be unjust about it) and you could of course have disagreement with the consenquences being injustices as i described them.
so in the context...
> There are US policies that I oppose and there are some I agree with.me too.
> But when I feel that they are all being lumped together as one, I find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to defend my country
But then... You do seem to have assumed that I am 'anti american' railing at the 'great satan' on a number of occasions where i really haven't been. and so... maybe you are predisposed to see people as lumping them all together??? i find myself in the uncomfortable position of having to say 'i am not anti american' over and over and over... i'm not attacking your country. but even if i was... i can't do any damage to your country with words. and i'm not talking about you. i'm talking about your country. but it isn't yours in the sense that you are responsible for every single policy and law and like you are responsible for writing god (the conception central to judaism islam christianity - probably not so synchronous with bhuddism, hinduism, paganism, etc) into the constitution and so on and so forth
> The only things I would call our "ideals" are the same things that have people beating down the door to get here: reward for hard work, opportunity and freedom.
i'm going to grit my teeth about now and say 'yes of course the american dream has a description that makes it desirable'. what i worry about is
1) whether hard work is necessarily rewarded (how are the illegal immigrants doing with rewards of healthcare and decent wages and decent working conditions etc)
2) opportunity i wonder how much luck comes into play. like buying a lotto ticket buys you the opportunity to become a millionare...
3) freedom where the focus seems to be on freedom to do whatever you want at the expense of pepole having freedom from certain things (ie freedom to carry a firearm at the expense of other people having the freedom to not get shot) and so on... freedom to persue happiness via material wealth (which comes at significant cost to third world countries / the environment etc)... where the 'persuit of happiness' is considered an ideal (at cost to third world countries / the environment etc) when there is no ideal of contentment and moderation...and any country has problems. and you can talk about the ideology of my (former - cause i'm probably more attached to that one) country. but you will probably have to have a bit of a hunt to figure what it is we do believe 'cause i don't know that we have the catchphrases and slogans and i don't know that they are as repeated around the world...
> The rest is just details. And it seems that as hard as I try I just can't seem to show you the difference.
yes having trouble...
what is interesting to me is the flipside.
that there is a flipside
that there is a counterdescription.because the same for iraq
because the same for iran
because the same for china
because the same for nazi germany
and so on and so forth...
Posted by special_k on April 18, 2006, at 16:51:12
In reply to Re: Blocks should be a private administrative matter » special_k, posted by greywolf on April 18, 2006, at 10:58:49
hey.
>I am occasionally uncomfortable with the way some of those points are made.
i'm sorry about that.
> However, it's never a big deal, and I generally enjoy reading what you write.
thanks. i'll probably get blocked regardless... but thanks for that.
> The main difference I see between your view of blocking and mine is that I lean toward accepting errors and/or arbitrariness by admins and mods simply because, after posting on boards for about 6 years now, I am not aware of a common ground that makes everyone happy.sure. kinda like how there aren't any countries laws where everyone is happy under them...
but i guess we can either try and improve the situation or we can just kind of throw up our hands.
i think a lot of people have been harmed by the blocking system. people have talked about this for a while now.
i wonder how many have been helped and whether on balance it is worth it...
or if people have been harmed where good really didn't come of it...
in which case maybe it is time to ease off.> The best system I can conceive is one that allows the person blocked a full and fair opportunity to appeal that block, and to have others offer their opinions for or against the discipline.
you can complain... but there is no guarantee you will even be acknowledged. aka you can rail as much as you like privately.
> Public discussions of blocks can become contentious at times and, if you're a person like me who sometimes can't help frequently scanning the boards you're interested in (hello OCD!), constantly running into unhappiness created by blocking controversies can create an unhappy atmosphere within the site as a whole.
so we should just ignore it.
ignore blocks we don't agree with.
preserve the status quo.
hang out heads.
resign ourselves to our likely fate...
(and rail at the moderator every now and then via email)
but of course no changes will be made that way.
i get the impression having more deputies is intended to move things off admin rather.
small group decisions rather than weighing in on everyones opinion.
maybe... hard to know...
> I know, I know--I should be able to just avoid these threads if they bring me down. Yeah, just like I should be able to turn the light off without flicking the switch 5 times.yeah. i have trouble avoiding threads i think i should avoid too... it can be hard... but i find that seeing it as a 'choice' can help me see that really i'm reading because part of me wants to and i don't feel so upset about what i'm reading any more. but OCD must suck. and i don't understand what it is like. i'm sorry.
> Those are just my general thoughts. I hope I've expressed them inoffensively.yeah. i think it is pretty hard to offend me...
but even if you did...
you haven't said anything wrong.
Posted by Estella on May 7, 2006, at 3:30:00
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess. » special_k, posted by Dinah on April 17, 2006, at 20:47:50
> Given your stated intent for your recent posts, I for one have nothing further to say on this subject. At least not in response to any but the most empathetic of posts that appear to neither wish to upset people nor to p*ss them off. And if I were dictator of this site, I would never ever change a single thing that someone tried to change in this way. In fact I'd dig in my heels and vow never to change it. Just on principle. Because changing it would encourage this sort of tactic.
>
> JMHO.
>
> But thank you for being so honest.Very supportive...
Thanks for that.Guess you figure you will shape me into line at some point
Otherwise you can just step back and let him block me
I don't give a sh*t at this point
Another two weeks of hell
And nobody here does understand
You don't understand
You don't have any ideaMy 'stated intentions'
Please be sensitive...
And your comment below about this 'not necessarily being the place'
Nicely selected too.
Goodbye.
Nicely shaped.
Goodbye.
Posted by Dinah on May 7, 2006, at 3:40:48
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess. » Dinah, posted by Estella on May 7, 2006, at 3:30:00
My wording was standard wording, Estella. Perhaps not the most personal or empathetic of choices, but when acting as deputy, I prefer to stick to the standard wording in the main body of the administrative action for the sake of consistency.
As for the post you refer to, I was angry. But the intent was not to hurt you.
Posted by Estella on May 8, 2006, at 11:03:19
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess. » Estella, posted by Dinah on May 7, 2006, at 3:40:48
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060412/msgs/641279.html
and the one after...
Posted by ClearSkies on May 14, 2006, at 14:13:01
In reply to Just take down the politics board I guess., posted by madeline on April 17, 2006, at 17:21:55
Just a thought about the politics and faith boards -
I naively thought that they were boards for discussing the subjects of politics and faith with regard to mental health.
Silly me. But when I consider it, wouldn't that make sense for Psycho-Babble?
Posted by Declan on May 14, 2006, at 16:01:06
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess., posted by ClearSkies on May 14, 2006, at 14:13:01
It would be more of a challenge, certainly. Quasi-marxist thingos, arguments about the interrelationship of the public and the personal. You clearly don't have in mind people posting 'this government has made me mentally ill'. I've forgotten most of that stuff, but I'd be trying to remember it to make up some halfway viable argument. Imagine what the other animals think of us.
Declan
Posted by ClearSkies on May 14, 2006, at 16:10:54
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess. » ClearSkies, posted by Declan on May 14, 2006, at 16:01:06
Exactly! I'm sure the hyenas are laffing their *sses off at us.
But I wonder if those boards wouldn't be more educational and supportive; and less of a jet propulsion mechanism for lobbing posters off the site, if we made the scope less broad. (Faith has become a very quiet board, but I'm still not interested in posting on it in its present format.)
CS
Posted by Declan on May 14, 2006, at 16:19:36
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess. » Declan, posted by ClearSkies on May 14, 2006, at 16:10:54
Maybe it's good to allow things to become decentralised so there are ghettoes where like minded people can chat. Which neccessarily means that differently minded people won't easily feel at home.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2007, at 22:55:58
In reply to Re: Just take down the politics board I guess., posted by chinchilla1 on April 17, 2006, at 18:45:59
> How about making blocks board-specific, and leaving overall bans for the most egregious of offenses?
>
> Since Politics seems to be the most problematic for some posters, it may be necessary to take a break from that forum, without being exiled from the community as a whole.I do think specific boards may be problematic for some posters, and I'd like to explore the idea of board-specific blocks in those cases.
What if a poster who was blocked and thought a particular board was problematic for them could ask to convert that general block into a block that was board-specific, but twice as long?
The deputies and I would decide whether to make the conversion or not. If we did, and the poster was blocked again (or posted to the specific board, or to another board something that should've been posted to that board), then we'd convert the board-specific block back to a general block and extend it.
Bob
Posted by muffled on September 24, 2007, at 23:40:19
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2007, at 22:55:58
> > How about making blocks board-specific, and leaving overall bans for the most egregious of offenses?
> >
> > Since Politics seems to be the most problematic for some posters, it may be necessary to take a break from that forum, without being exiled from the community as a whole.
>
> I do think specific boards may be problematic for some posters, and I'd like to explore the idea of board-specific blocks in those cases.
>
> What if a poster who was blocked and thought a particular board was problematic for them could ask to convert that general block into a block that was board-specific, but twice as long?*this would be via e-mail to you Bob, since they are unable to post?
WHAT is it w/you and length???
Anyhow, I guess if its just one board then its not such a big deal.
> The deputies and I would decide whether to make the conversion or not. If we did, and the poster was blocked again (or posted to the specific board, or to another board something that should've been posted to that board), then we'd convert the board-specific block back to a general block and extend it.*Decide to convert or not....just exactly WHAT criteria are you considering? It puts more power in YOUR court, you got ENUF power and control...
Extend it....there you go again...extend by how much? Just a week? or you gonna start to doubling and tripling etc again? I think turning it into a full block is proly punish enuf...Anyhow, there's some good ideas here.
I read the thread, and I must say, IMHO things HAVE in fact improved re: blocking. There ARE less blocks. There's been stuff thats been blocked in the past and thats let go now, and thats GOOD! Cuz some stuff truly WAS kinda overly rigid IMHO.
There's still plenty I don't understand though...
Thanks that you still trying to improve stuff i reckon.
Thats good too.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 3, 2007, at 20:43:57
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on September 24, 2007, at 23:40:19
> > What if a poster who was blocked and thought a particular board was problematic for them could ask to convert that general block into a block that was board-specific, but twice as long?
>
> this would be via e-mail to you Bob, since they are unable to post?I guess so, to me or to a deputy.
> > If ... the poster was blocked again ... then we'd convert the board-specific block back to a general block and extend it.
>
> Extend it....there you go again...extend by how much? Just a week? or you gonna start to doubling and tripling etc again?I think it would be most consistent to double it or triple it or whatever.
If there's no more discussion, let's go ahead and give this a try?
Bob
Posted by zenhussy on October 4, 2007, at 0:19:11
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific, posted by Dr. Bob on October 3, 2007, at 20:43:57
>>> I guess so, to me or to a deputy.<<<
would a straight forward (clear cut?) answer instead of a guess better help the posters of this site?
>>>I think it would be most consistent to double it or triple it or whatever.
If there's no more discussion, let's go ahead and give this a try?
Bob<<<what constitutes 'more discussion'? and what is your definition 'most consistent'?
Posted by Dinah on October 4, 2007, at 9:13:38
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific » Dr. Bob, posted by zenhussy on October 4, 2007, at 0:19:11
I can answer, but perhaps you'd prefer your answers from Dr. Bob himself?
Posted by Dinah on October 4, 2007, at 9:18:37
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific » zenhussy, posted by Dinah on October 4, 2007, at 9:13:38
Posted by muffled on October 4, 2007, at 22:03:07
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific, posted by Dr. Bob on October 3, 2007, at 20:43:57
> I guess so, to me or to a deputy.
**ummmm Bob, that IS kinda a wimpy answer since its comming from The Administrator...
> > Extend it....there you go again...extend by how much? Just a week? or you gonna start to doubling and tripling etc again?
> I think it would be most consistent to double it or triple it or whatever.*consistant with what?
And
'or whatever'. Mebbe blocking is no big deal to you, but its a BIG deal to some :-(
I dunno what headframe you were in when you wrote this????
> If there's no more discussion, let's go ahead and give this a try?*well I just seen your answer, and MHO is that we need a more specific response from you.
This was a weird post.
M
Posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2007, at 13:24:13
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific » Dr. Bob, posted by muffled on October 4, 2007, at 22:03:07
> > I guess so, to me or to a deputy.
>
> ummmm Bob, that IS kinda a wimpy answer since its comming from The Administrator...Sorry. Yes, a blocked poster could ask to convert a block via email to me or a deputy.
> > I think it would be most consistent to double it or triple it or whatever.
>
> consistant with what?
> And
> 'or whatever'.Consistent with the current blocking policy. And sorry again, what I meant was, exactly how long would be determined by the severity.
Bob
Posted by muffled on October 6, 2007, at 0:04:06
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2007, at 13:24:13
Posted by zazenducke on October 23, 2007, at 11:58:43
In reply to Re: making blocks board-specific, posted by Dr. Bob on October 5, 2007, at 13:24:13
Dr Bob how about instead of blocking from a specific board we invite blocked posters to post only on a specific board?
Mightn't we just invite them to the Admin board Dr Bob?
Pleeeeeeease Pleeeeeeeeeease Pleeeeeeeeeease
> > > I guess so, to me or to a deputy.
> >
> > ummmm Bob, that IS kinda a wimpy answer since its comming from The Administrator...
>
> Sorry. Yes, a blocked poster could ask to convert a block via email to me or a deputy.
>
> > > I think it would be most consistent to double it or triple it or whatever.
> >
> > consistant with what?
> > And
> > 'or whatever'.
>
> Consistent with the current blocking policy. And sorry again, what I meant was, exactly how long would be determined by the severity.
>
> 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.