Posted by Jost on June 21, 2006, at 22:47:47
In reply to Re: What folks have been saying, posted by Dr. Bob on June 20, 2006, at 22:26:19
This is probably completely moot, to say the least, but I have one question about the following response by Dr. Bob to jakeman's request to review the blocking of Estella for the general comment about religion.
I may misunderstand the following, which seems to be Dr.B's answer. As I read it (please correct me if I'm not following), Bob is saying that reconsideration of the block on Estella is moot, because she committed a second act of incivility for which she was blocked. Thus the second block supercedes the first one (about which the review request is being made)--so the first block no longer governs, and Jake isn't contesting the second block.
But as I say, the second link here is to a post by Alexandra_k. So I'm a bit confused, since I assume that Estella and Alexandra_k aren't the same person (given other rules).
Is there some other second uncivil message that led Estella to be blocked? Or am I misreading the second link, in ascribing it to someone other than Estella?
Could someone explain? Because I'm not following this part of the thread.
Jost
>
> --
>
> > Dr. Bob, would you reconsider this block on Estella? Again, why is it moot?
> >
> > Jake
>
> Regarding reconsidering, see Dinah's excellent translation:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/658093.html
>
> I think it's kind of moot because she was blocked again:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/654732.html
>
> after the block being discussed:
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/poli/20060417/msgs/646629.html
>
> Bob
poster:Jost
thread:646675
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060525/msgs/659985.html