![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 219 to 243 of 272. Go back in thread:
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 9:25:47
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 17, 2009, at 22:35:36
I may have once idealized Dr. Bob. It's not an insult really. I don't think I do idealize him after all these years. I *do* trust him to be exactly who he is - at least the person he's always been on Babble. Which isn't the same as idealizing him. And for me the person he's always been on Babble is someone who is a good enough administrator with flaws and strengths. Just like most people.
I've been incredibly rude to him in emails from time to time. In emails. And yet I truly do regret those times when I am rude to him.
Sometimes I've really been angry about other things on the board, and Dr. Bob is a safe person to be angry with. He never responds in kind. He stands like an immovable object in the face of my storm of fury. I don't believe that I have the power to hurt him. Sometimes that makes me even more angry with him, and makes me feel like upping the ante to get an emotional reaction. Which never works with Dr. Bob, which is why he's safe. That may be idealization, but I don't think so. I see it as being a good quality in an administrator and perhaps in general, and one I sometimes wish I was able to develop, but I'm not unaware that it comes with downsides, as most good qualities do.
Being angry with him allows me to be less angry with others. And since it can generally be seen that anything that does or doesn't happen on board is his ultimate responsibility, because he sets the rules and determines how they will be enforced, it's always easy enough to be angry with him.
Yet I always feel genuine regret, and I always apologize.
Sometimes the reason I apologize is that I feel regret for saying something that I realize in my heart of hearts he did not deserve.
Sometimes I apologize even if I believe he deserved every word I said. Because what Dr. Bob does is what Dr. Bob does. What I do is what I do. In my eyes, when I speak to anyone, whether positively or negatively, I'm expressing more than my beliefs about them. I'm also expressing information about myself. About my own values. One of my values is that in public or in private, people deserve the basic respect that all human beings deserve. I can express disagreement with a person's choices or their beliefs without expressing disrespect for the person.
Dr. Bob probably doesn't mind if people email him whatever thoughts are on their mind. I doubt that anyone could be ruder than I have been on occasion, although perhaps I just don't have a good enough imagination.
But he asks that on board, we treat each other - himself included - with basic respect and civility. We don't have to *feel* respect. But he asks that we *behave* in accordance with his site guidelines. I don't think that's a bad thing to ask. It's perfectly possible to disagree with him policies, to ask him to change his policies, while being civil to him.
And we did, and he did. He put in autoasterisking, and he modified the block formula. Those issues are in the past, and whether or not we agree with him on those decisions, the important thing is that he's put policies in place to see they don't happen again. He can't change the past, he did change the future. He changed the rules because we said things that changed his views on the topic. I don't think incivility to him would cause him to change his views. Persuasive arguments presented logically are more likely to succeed.
And.... While this is slightly off topic, no one is blocked for a year for saying anything at all. Someone receives a PBC for saying something, then a one week block, then it increases from there, more slowly now than it used to. A lot of times there is a tendency to think "Someone was blocked for a year for saying *that*?" And the answer is no, of course someone wasn't blocked for a year for saying that. Any more than the last out is the one that causes the game to be lost.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:10:57
In reply to Re: make change » Dr. Bob, posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 6:28:45
> Perhaps you could review the DNP guidelines here.Of course. The 'rules' come before 'civility'. I mean 'pretty pretty please do not post to me' what is so hard to understand?
> I believe I have the privilege to respond to a post without posting to or directly addressing a particular party who has requested a DNP. Of course, a DNP is supposed to be petitioned for via the administrative notification system.
Mmm hmm. Of course. This makes the best sense of 'civility', indeed.
> I will continue to post along this thread if it is my desire to do so, regardless of the proximity with which my posts appear to any other individual's posts.
Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this. Of course... Bob will prevail.
> Nothing new here.Indeed...
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
In reply to Idealizing, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 9:25:47
> He put in autoasterisking, and he modified the block formula.
But he didn't apologize to Zen or Muffled. He didn't take what he did to them back.
>Those issues are in the past,
I don't think they are. There isn't a system that doesn't allow a poster to post more than three posts in a row - and his enforcement of that rule is just as arbitrary and intermittent as his enforcement of the swearing without an asterisk rule. Which is to say sometimes he chooses to enforce (and sanction blocks of up to one year) whereas otherwise he does not.
> and whether or not we agree with him on those decisions, the important thing is that he's put policies in place to see they don't happen again.
Not with the three post rule.
>He can't change the past, he did change the future.
But the 'past' is the 'present' when people are presently blocked for his decisions that were made in the past.
> He changed the rules because we said things that changed his views on the topic.
When he appreciates that he can no longer sustain the support of the community without changing... He changes. I don't think it is about 'reason' so much as 'popular opinion', however. And not only that... The 'popular opinion' of those who he has chosen not to block. A self selected 'opinion' if ever there was one...
> I don't think incivility to him would cause him to change his views. Persuasive arguments presented logically are more likely to succeed.
That isn't my experience at all. Rational arguments are responded to with questions that attempt to throw everything back on the person asking the question. I haven't seen Bob give a straight answer to a straight question in... All my time here... I really don't know why anyone would think that...
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:28:11
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
> That isn't my experience at all. Rational arguments are responded to with questions that attempt to throw everything back on the person asking the question. I haven't seen Bob give a straight answer to a straight question in... All my time here... I really don't know why anyone would think that...
And yet in all my time here, I do think that. I think it because I've experienced it. Well, to be clear, Dr. Bob's idea of a straight answer and mine don't necessarily agree. But I have experienced him listening to a rational argument and seeing the validity of it.
And in all my time here, I've never known Dr. Bob to do anything at all because of popular opinion alone. Never.
I'm not saying that how you experience Dr. Bob isn't valid, but it is not how I experience him.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:30:45
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:21:15
Perhaps more to the point, have you ever seen Dr. Bob change his opinion because someone has been uncivil to him?
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 11:28:11
I don't think I've seen him change his opinion at all. Kinda like... Bush.. The whole war on terror (on incivility) is a war that is worth fighting indeed... Even when the UN (the majority of psychiatrists) don't accept that the way he thinks that one should fight it is the way that one should fight it...
I don't particularly care what Bob judges to be 'civil' or 'uncivil'. He is pretty 'uncivil' (according to his own definition) but then that is okay (according to him) because the role that he has elected himself in does not require him to be civil. See what a reasonable and civil person he is????? No, it is his self appointed role to judge of us whether we are civil or not civil, decent or indecent, good for the community or bad. His judgements are so clear and authorative that they justify sanctions of... Being blocked for up to one year.
Defining yourself as God doesn't make you so Dr Bob.
You gotta have known someone would call you on your sh*t one day - right?
Is that what this site is? A whole 'playing chicken' experiment with respect to when someone might call you on your sh*t?
Called. You are.
Now what you gonna do? Exclude me from the circle of opinions you feel you have to take seriously, of course (ie label me uncivil and be done with me)
Question: In good conscience???
Really?????????
I thought you were smarter than that...
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:52:28
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:10:57
> Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this.
Now, you see, you are addressing me directly here. That leaves you available for me to address back.
Do you really expect me to refrain from posting along a thread just because your name appears somewhere within it?
- Scott
Posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:54:14
In reply to Re: make change, posted by SLS on August 18, 2009, at 12:52:28
> > Thanks for your understanding on this. Or... Willful misunderstanding on this.
>
> Now, you see, you are addressing me directly here. That leaves you available for me to address back.
>
> Do you really expect me to refrain from posting along a thread just because your name appears somewhere within it?By the way, I owe you nothing.
- Scott
Posted by Nadezda on August 18, 2009, at 12:58:26
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
You aren't suggesting, are you, Alex, that there's any analogy between the war on terror and the civility rules here?
Or any argument that derives from the fact that you can construct a sentence of the form: "X (a person) has an idea about Y (something to be done) which Z (some other arguably virtuous group) doesn't accept"--? do you?
If that were some sort of argument, then I could say, with irony: Obama's (Bush's) plans for health insurance (war on terror) is a struggle worth engaging even though the people attending town hall meetings to voice their opinions (the UN) don't accept that one should pursue it...
You really have to draw some connection between civility here and the war on terror (assumed to be a bad thing) for this sort of point to have any force. But there's no connection. To put it otherwise, it's an implied equivalence that is unsupportable. It's like comparing bad apples to the rack. It fails from lack of resonance between the terms.
It doesn't strengthens your objections to the civility rules--
Nadezda
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 18, 2009, at 13:09:42
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
Although I'm not intellectually up to participating in this thread, I want to let you know I support your position, Alexandra.
I hope that your strongly stated views do not end up in another long block - it would be a shame to lose your voice from the site for any period of time.
pc
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 15:04:19
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 11:43:25
> You gotta have known someone would call you on your sh*t one day - right?
??? It seems to me that Dr. Bob gets "called" on things all the time. You certainly aren't the first. Many have been blocked protesting Dr. Bob's administration. Sometimes I wonder if people quit protesting the long blocks, if there would be long blocks at all. Admittedly, I don't quite understand the purpose. Why deprive yourself of a voice on the site in order to protest? What is the concrete goal? Other than perhaps to forcibly remove yourself from someplace you don't wish to be. Admittedly it's hard to walk away sometimes.
> Question: In good conscience???
>
> Really?????????
>
> I thought you were smarter than that...Smarter than that how? Smarter than enforcing the guidelines on his own site? How is that not smart? Or in good conscience. By your own account, if he blocks some people for a behavior, he should block others for the same behavior. How is that unconscionable?
I feel like I'm totally missing the point here.
What will be gained?
I really really don't understand. I don't understand any of this. I feel enormously sad, and frustrated on top of it, because I just don't understand why.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 18:16:44
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 15:04:19
> Many have been blocked protesting Dr. Bob's administration.
Are you sure about that? He doesn't seem to think that that is so.
> Why deprive yourself of a voice on the site in order to protest?
I'm not 'depriving myself' of anything. I don't enforce the rules here - Bob does. He chooses what he will do with his conduct. He chooses whether he will block me or whether he will not.
> Smarter than that how? Smarter than enforcing the guidelines on his own site? How is that not smart? Or in good conscience. By your own account, if he blocks some people for a behavior, he should block others for the same behavior. How is that unconscionable?
The idea is more that... Blocking someone for one year for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk strikes me as too harsh. I wonder how the majority of people would feel about this if Bob did a survey. I wonder how the majority of psychiatrists would feel about this even. Do people really agree with him that a person who says `sh*t' without an asterisk is 'incivil' or 'indecent' or 'harmful to the community'? Do they really think that that justifies him blocking a person for up to one year? His intermittent enforcement (sometimes he will sometimes he won't) just compounds the problem. The solution isn't to enforce more. Analogy:
Some people might have their hand chopped off for theft. You know, steal something worth 5c - lose a hand. People do 'choose' to lose a hand insofar as they choose to steal - right Bob? Problem: Some people lose a hand, others do not. Maybe it is a little too harsh to remove a persons hand for theft. I know... Lets enforce the rule more consistently - somehow that is supposed to magically make everything okay???
(The point is that inconsistent enforcement compounds the problem. But this isn't to condone the act or to say that the solution is to more widely apply precisely that which is problematic).
But really... All this is... Simply a waste of breath, yeah. Cause really... It will just end up in the archives... Forgotten... LIke all the other complaints. But then... What complaints? Bob doesn't seem to think there are any... I'm just a random raver - right Bob?
Posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 18:25:49
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 15:04:19
thanks muffled and partlycloudy. i'm usually reluctant to name names. asking people who have left or reduced their imput to go down on the record as such is like... trying to herd a bunch of cats lol.
Posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 19:38:01
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 18, 2009, at 18:16:44
> > Many have been blocked protesting Dr. Bob's administration.
>
> Are you sure about that? He doesn't seem to think that that is so.I believe we mean that differently. Many people have been blocked while stating that they are in the process of protesting site administration. They are not blocked *for* protesting site administration. There are people who protest site administration who do not do so in such a way that will result in a block.
> > Why deprive yourself of a voice on the site in order to protest?
>
> I'm not 'depriving myself' of anything. I don't enforce the rules here - Bob does. He chooses what he will do with his conduct. He chooses whether he will block me or whether he will not.But Dr. Bob is not the one choosing how to post here. You are. Do you think that whether or not Dr. Bob blocks you has nothing at all to do with your own choices? You originally chose how to post, you chose how to respond to his "suggestions" about apologies, you chose how to respond to other posters, and you are choosing how to post right now. You do have a choice whether or not to be blocked. Dr. Bob will make his choices, true. But he will make his choices based on your choices, and he has clearly laid out what his choices will be. What you choose to do in response to that is as much a choice as what he chooses to do in response to your response.
Dr. Bob is not the only active participant in this. You are just as active as he is. You can't choose to post in a way that Dr. Bob has defined as against site guidelines and still not be blocked. He can't choose to have you post as he wishes you would. You both have choices. But both of your choices are constrained by the choices of the other.
> > Smarter than that how? Smarter than enforcing the guidelines on his own site? How is that not smart? Or in good conscience. By your own account, if he blocks some people for a behavior, he should block others for the same behavior. How is that unconscionable?
>
> The idea is more that... Blocking someone for one year for saying 'sh*t' without an asterisk strikes me as too harsh.Again, no one is blocked for a year for saying anything at all. Someone is blocked for a year for violating site guidelines a certain number of times. With the guidelines admittedly being set by Dr. Bob as his right and responsibility on the site he owns and operates. To be precise. If I were to be blocked for a year, it would be because I at the very least:
1. Violated site guidelines. Given a PBC.
2. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for a week.
3. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for two weeks.
4. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for four weeks.
5. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for eight weeks.
6. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for sixteen weeks.
7. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for thirtytwo weeks.
8. Violated site guidelines. Blocked for a year.This is assuming that I violated site guidelines as soon as I came back from each previous block, was caught every time, was given the maximum consequence, and at no time was particularly uncivil to another poster. If my eighth violation of site guidelines was overriding the asterisking system, I would be blocked for a year not because I overrode the asterisking system, but because I violated site guidelines eight times within a certain period of time as defined by Bob's formula.
Dr. Bob has eased up on block lengths, but people do still get blocked for long periods of time. If you want to say that eight violations of site guidelines shouldn't result in a year's block, then fine. But you need to be here to say that. You need to be here to discuss changing board policy. You need to be here for Babble to hear and see you.
> But really... All this is... Simply a waste of breath, yeah. Cause really... It will just end up in the archives... Forgotten... LIke all the other complaints. But then... What complaints? Bob doesn't seem to think there are any... I'm just a random raver - right Bob?
>I do not see how it is possible for Dr. Bob to believe there are no complaints since he reads Admin on at least a semiregular basis.
If it's not healthy for you to be here... If it's not someplace you want to be... Then you know that I will support whatever decisions you make. I'm not asking you to apologize. I wouldn't ask you to apologize. I want you to do whatever is best for you. But... I guess I just don't understand how it can be best for you to see this as Dr. Bob blocking you for some whim of his own, and not see that you are not powerless in your relationship with him or with Babble. I guess I don't see feelings of powerlessness as being the best thing for anyone.
If you'd like for me to drop this, I will of course not continue discussing this. But I hope we can continue to talk about other things. I don't want to lose you as a friend over Babble. That's a loss I choose not to take, to the extent that it is my choice.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2009, at 0:22:56
In reply to Re: Idealizing » alexandra_k, posted by Dinah on August 18, 2009, at 19:38:01
Yeah, I choose what I will and will not post here, I am responsible for what I say.
But Bob is responsible for what he does and doesn't post here. He is responsible for the way he interprets things and for his blocking behavior.> . Someone is blocked for a year for violating site guidelines a certain number of times.
Well... Someone is blocked for a year because Bob repeatedly judges them to have violated site guidelines a certain number of times.
> Dr. Bob has eased up on block lengths, but people do still get blocked for long periods of time. If you want to say that eight violations of site guidelines shouldn't result in a year's block, then fine. But you need to be here to say that. You need to be here to discuss changing board policy. You need to be here for Babble to hear and see you.
I'm kinda done. I've said what I wanted / needed to say. I'm kinda done now.
> I do not see how it is possible for Dr. Bob to believe there are no complaints since he reads Admin on at least a semiregular basis.
Yeah, you would think.
No matter what... You won't lose my friendship. Promise.
Posted by Dinah on August 19, 2009, at 5:10:05
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2009, at 0:22:56
> No matter what... You won't lose my friendship. Promise.
I'm selfish enough to say that that's what matters most to me. :)
Posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2009, at 11:22:25
In reply to Re: Idealizing, posted by alexandra_k on August 19, 2009, at 0:22:56
> > Would you say of another poster here that their idea or behavior was 'stupid' if you thought they were big enough to look after themselves?
>
> No, that is not it.If you did think another poster's idea or behavior was stupid, what you would say to them?
--
> > Yes, it's up to me to decide on the rules here. How would it make you feel to abide by them?
> If that is The Way Things Are then fine. But at least be honest about that fact.
>
> And be honest about the fact that this simply isn't negotiable.The way things are here is I decide on the rules. And on what's negotiable.
> he has too much power, I think.
> One could of course say 'its his site' - but isn't this to acknowledge the unfairness of the situation and just basically advocate... sucking up the unfairness?
In what way do you see the situation as unfair?
It sounds like the answer, at least in part, to my earlier question is that abiding by the rules here would make you feel powerless and subservient.
--
> Yeah, I choose what I will and will not post here, I am responsible for what I say.
> But Bob is responsible for what he does and doesn't post here. He is responsible for the way he interprets things and for his blocking behavior.Exactly, we each have the power to choose, and are responsible for, what we do. You chose to post and I choose to interpret as uncivil:
> the stupid rules
> your little chosen circle of idealizers
> don't post to me
> Willful misunderstanding
You're responsible for your posts and I'm responsible for my interpretations. And you choose whether to apologize or rephrase, and are responsible for your choice. And I choose whether to block you, and am responsible for my choice.
Thanks, Nadezda, muffled, Dinah, and Partlycloudy, for trying to help.
Bob
Posted by Partlycloudy on August 19, 2009, at 12:42:21
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2009, at 11:22:25
Sometimes, Babble makes me cry. That's when I know I have to step back. I see what's coming, and there is nothing I can do to prevent it.
I can't say that anything else on the internet has the same impact on my emotional state. This is huge.
pc
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2009, at 10:32:10
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on August 19, 2009, at 11:22:25
It might be that Alex may not feel willing to make the choice to apologize and rephrase. And it likely is that you will then feel like you need to make the choice to block her, in keeping with Babble policy.
But might it be possible to block her for less than the full time she might receive under the formula? For a week perhaps? Or a month?
This might demonstrate good faith on your part that you really do wish Alex to be part of this community. And allow Alex to choose in the future to remain part of this community by committing to choose to post by site guidelines. Even if she doesn't feel like she can apologize for statements she made in the past.
I recognize that this may be inconsistent with past decisions, and you may not feel able to do this. Nor do I know if Alex would be interested in this.
But it is in keeping with what I have been suggesting recently. That blocks not be based on length but based on a willingness to abide by site guidelines. People might choose to post things in the past that they are willing to choose not to post in the future. Apologizing for things past can sometimes be harder than refraining from doing things in the future.
I think it would be a good thing for Babble for this to be part of the whole blocking process. To allow people to return to Babble from a block, if they are willing to choose to commit to follow site guidelines in the future. With perhaps some assurances given in the form of civility buddies, etc. if the first recommitment is broken. I think that people, as they start receiving longer blocks, might choose to be proactive to have more control over their blocks than they believe themselves currently to have. Making it possible to soften long blocks by their own actions might reduce the fear and resentment.
Just an idea.
Posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2009, at 16:15:35
In reply to Might I make a suggestion? » Dr. Bob, posted by Dinah on August 23, 2009, at 10:32:10
I appreciate the thought, Dinah, but I choose not to participate in a site where the rules are applied inconsistently, punitively and where posters genuine concerns are unfairly dismissed as arising from their issues.
Dr Bob can block me to kingdom come - I really don't give a sh*t.
I do miss Babblers... But then there are so many former Babblers who have left in protest who I miss as well. I choose to be one one the latter.
(Let Bob try and put things back on posters - 'you lament that there are less people here - what can you do about that' while once again ignoring the most salient feature - his decisions around inconsistent enforcement and long block).
If that isn't stupid... Then... What is it???
I want to let you know that I'd support you in getting help for your issues, Bob.
But I'm sick to death of this place.
Posted by Dinah on August 23, 2009, at 17:54:53
In reply to Re: Might I make a suggestion?, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2009, at 16:15:35
Well, as I said, I support you in any decision that you make. Although of course it does make me sad that you won't be able to get and give support on Babble.
Still, I think the idea has merit, and I hope Dr. Bob does consider it in general, even if you aren't interested in it yourself. Maybe some good can come of this, in terms of the goal of reducing block times overall.
((( Alex )))
Talk to you soon I hope. I haven't heard how things are going lately with school and your therapist.
Posted by gobbledygook on August 23, 2009, at 19:40:37
In reply to Re: make change, posted by alexandra_k on August 12, 2009, at 20:06:04
Hi Alex,
I don't know if you remember, but we were in chat together for hours once in the past when I was someone else. You had me in stitches with your quick wit and hysterical links..."Medication, sometimes the world just needs a break..," Bill and Monica, and some others. That was the most fun I've ever had in chat!!! Thank you for those moments. I thought you were so engaging and real and hoped that you would come back and chat more but I didn't see you for a long time after that. When you eventually did come back I was someone else by then and somehow we never really got to interact again like before.
I will undoubtedly miss your distinctive posts if you go, but I understand, and respect and support whatever you decide is right for you at this time. I also want to say that I have always liked who you are, Alex. Just wanted to let you know in case I don't see you for awhile.
Wishing you zen mindfulness, Alex.
Ava
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2009, at 12:34:48
In reply to Re: Might I make a suggestion?, posted by alexandra_k on August 23, 2009, at 16:15:35
> Dr Bob can block me to kingdom come - I really don't give a sh*t.
OK, we each make our choices and are responsible for them.
Please don't take this personally, this doesn't mean I don't like you or think you're a bad person, and I'm sorry if this hurts you.
I do hope that you choose to remain a member of this community and that this community helps you, if needed, to avoid future blocks.
Dinah and Ava, thanks for trying to help.
More information about posting policies and tips on alternative ways to express oneself are in the FAQ:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#enforceFollow-ups regarding these issues, as well as replies to the above post, should of course themselves be civil.
Thanks,
Bob
PS: According to the formula:
duration of previous block: 52 weeks
period of time since previous block: 37 weeks
severity: 2 (default)
block length = 36.89 rounded = 37 weeks
Posted by BayLeaf on September 8, 2009, at 19:47:40
In reply to Re: choice and responsibility » alexandra_k, posted by Dr. Bob on September 8, 2009, at 12:34:48
Usually you put it in the subject line. Why not this time?
So you won't listen to the MANY MANY MANY requests to stop these long blocks.
Why can't you change your ways on this policy? It's sending good people away from your site.
Unless that's what you want...the slow demise of Babble. If so, good work.
Posted by Dr. Bob on September 28, 2009, at 10:30:21
In reply to Alex blocked for 37 weeks :-( » Dr. Bob, posted by BayLeaf on September 8, 2009, at 19:47:40
> Usually you put it in the subject line. Why not this time?
Because the subject was choice and responsibility. And I've been wondering in general if it needs to be in the subject line.
> So you won't listen to the MANY MANY MANY requests to stop these long blocks.
>
> Why can't you change your ways on this policy?I listen to the requests. But I don't have any plans to change this policy. Posters are free to stop these blocks on their own if they want.
Bob
Go forward in 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.