FTR, I wholeheartedly agree with Trudy that eventually the banning forever issue needs to be addressed. However I also agree with everyone else that it should wait until it's an actual situation and not just a hypothetical one.

I, too, was touched by Zoe's note. And I'm very glad the Stompies shared it with the rest of us, even at the risk of a mini-kerfuffle. I hope this reaction hasn't caused anyone to regret sharing it with us in the first place.

Didn't we already define our disciplinary process? Aren't warnings and suspensions the things from which you can come back, and banning the thing from which you couldn't come back? As far as I understood when voting on it, banning is a permanent action.

ita "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Apr 19, 2003 12:09:12 am PDT

and

ita "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Apr 22, 2003 12:20:51 am PDT

This is a hypothetical question. Nobody has asked to return. It is also a very emotional question, as has been proven in the past.

That's a bad combination. I suggest we abandon this until the issue is actually raised.

I'm with Betsy.

Betsy is wise. Please. Time enough when we have an actual request.

I appreciated reading the note. Standing in the no response required corner.

And again, Laura is my Bureaucracy doppelganger.

I suggest we abandon this until the issue is actually raised.

And agreeing with Betsy.

Matt the Bruins fan - Dec 22, 2003 3:59:26 pm PST #762 of 812 If [Greenwalt] gets Christian Kane to bare all on network television I will hunt down Nielsen families and MAKE them watch Angel!!!

Or, if you want to give back some of what you've been getting and drive the family's average blood pressure up over 300, there's always the opting to travel cross-country for an indecent proprosal from a gay redneck rather than attend the family Christmas. I think it wouldn't be too difficult to find a volunteer.

[Edit: Oh good gravy, this is NOT the COMM. Oy.]

I vote that Trudy is fired.

ETA: That's supposed to be cute ribbing, and love stuff.

I vote to give Trudy a raise, because we needed some fun in this thread, and she brought it in.

I hope that this isn't too memememe for this discussion but I have intimate knowledge of dealing with schizophrenics and believe me when I say that "stable and on meds" does NOT equal "behaves like a perfectly normal person".

My brother has been "stable and on meds" for nearly five years and he still exhibits bizarre behavior that I would not for the world inflict on people in spite of the fact that I know he isn't responsible for a lot of that behavior. Also, the last 13 years have been a roller coaster of lapsing on medication and into and out of psychotic episodes.

As much as I am glad that Zoe is getting the medical attention that she needs, I fully understand that people would be highly uncomfortable with her hypothetical reinstatement based on her medical situation.

That the banning issue sticks in some folks throats can be addressed within the community and may have nothing to do with this as I do not see Zoe asking for reinstatement in her apology.

I will however, say that out here in the real world, my brother has been subjected to harsh community standards because of his behavior--so much so that he spent two years in prison for it--ill or not. So I think I have a fair view of both sides of this situation. But I would not, for any price uneccessarily expose myself to the dramatics and emotional bloodletting that goes alone with dealing with a schizophrenic if I didn't have to as a member of a family with schizophrenia or a caregiver.