ban me

[ApostateAbe]

Can you please ban me? I need to focus on school work. Thanks.

 

[Fukyo]

But what happened to the strength of will?

 

[snafupants]

^ Nope, he made his decision.

 

[Reluctantly]

Never!!! The world will know that free INTPs stood against your productivity, that few stood against many before and, before this battle is over, that even your time can be wasted as well!!!

 

[ApostateAbe]

But what happened to the strength of will?

Strength of will requires the realization of one's weakness and acting on the steps it takes to correct for them. Why am I not banned yet?

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Can you please ban me? I need to focus on school work. Thanks.

 

[Cegorach]

We don't accept ban requests.

 

[The Gopher]

You will just find something else to do that wastes time anyway

 

[Cavallier]

Ugh. Another ban request? Why don't you just destroy your internet connection while you're at it?

 

[loveofreason]

Torture on request could be arranged. Why not live a little?

 

[echoplex]

If it were me, you'd have to ban alot more than a little forum account. I'd start with the internet.

 

[Latro]

We don't accept ban requests.

...
Please don't blatantly ignore history by making sweeping statements like this. There has been at least one ban request accepted. It certainly wasn't like this, but it existed.

 

[Cegorach]

That situation is entirely irrelevant to this thread.

Were I to have mentioned such a thing it would have caused no alteration of the current decision, though perhaps implying that he had a chance at obtaining a ban himself, this could have further required me to explain how unique that particular situation was and invited debate as to how we can possibly decide who does and who doesn't deserve a ban at request.
Something of which I'm certainly not in the mood for.

As well, our history is entirely archived and easily accessible, ignorance of it is the fault of the individual and I have no intention of educating the persistent stream of newcomers who could just as easily read our forum history as I managed when I initially joined the forum.
They can at least skim through threads in the first page of each section if they otherwise find the volume of information too overwhelming, or they could choose to remain uneducated.
I care not which.

Were I to have said that we had never allowed a ban request I would entirely agree with you, but due to my statement not at all having neglected past occurrences and only asserting what we do not do (left largely ambiguous as to any reference towards allotted time-frame), I can hardly say I see your post as anything more than meaningless semantics.

 

[EyeSeeCold]

Serious business

 

[BigApplePi]

Is this request similar to the would be suicide who asks someone to kill them because they can't do it hirself?

 

[The Gopher]

something like that.

 

[ProxyAmenRa]

What? I thought we said 'never again' the first time.

 

[Latro]

That situation is entirely irrelevant to this thread.

Were I to have mentioned such a thing it would have caused no alteration of the current decision, though perhaps implying that he had a chance at obtaining a ban himself, this could have further required me to explain how unique that particular situation was and invited debate as to how we can possibly decide who does and who doesn't deserve a ban at request.
Something of which I'm certainly not in the mood for.

As well, our history is entirely archived and easily accessible, ignorance of it is the fault of the individual and I have no intention of educating the persistent stream of newcomers who could just as easily read our forum history as I managed when I initially joined the forum.
They can at least skim through threads in the first page of each section if they otherwise find the volume of information too overwhelming, or they could choose to remain uneducated.
I care not which.

Were I to have said that we had never allowed a ban request I would entirely agree with you, but due to my statement not at all having neglected past occurrences and only asserting what we do not do (left largely ambiguous as to any reference towards allotted time-frame), I can hardly say I see your post as anything more than meaningless semantics.

The ambiguity is exactly the problem. In my opinion, the straightforward interpretation of "we don't accept ban requests" without any other context would be to extend it to all time scales.

 

[nexion]

If it were me, you'd have to ban alot more than a little forum account. I'd start with the internet.

Eh, just go to the root of the problem, and sterilize your brain.

I wasn't going to reply to this, but then I found out that is recent.

 

[Glordag]

That situation is entirely irrelevant to this thread.

Were I to have mentioned such a thing it would have caused no alteration of the current decision, though perhaps implying that he had a chance at obtaining a ban himself, this could have further required me to explain how unique that particular situation was and invited debate as to how we can possibly decide who does and who doesn't deserve a ban at request.
Something of which I'm certainly not in the mood for.

As well, our history is entirely archived and easily accessible, ignorance of it is the fault of the individual and I have no intention of educating the persistent stream of newcomers who could just as easily read our forum history as I managed when I initially joined the forum.
They can at least skim through threads in the first page of each section if they otherwise find the volume of information too overwhelming, or they could choose to remain uneducated.
I care not which.

Were I to have said that we had never allowed a ban request I would entirely agree with you, but due to my statement not at all having neglected past occurrences and only asserting what we do not do (left largely ambiguous as to any reference towards allotted time-frame), I can hardly say I see your post as anything more than meaningless semantics.

Oh great, now I have the urge to read through the entire forum history. Thanks. No, really - I appreciate that. I'm sure my time couldn't be better spent elsewhere. *mumble mutter*

 

[NoID10ts]

May I have a ban? For old time's sake? Please?

 

[loveofreason]

No, but you know you're always welcome to a spanking any time you like ;p

 

[NoID10ts]

May I schedule a spanking for tomorrow afternoon, say around two thirty?

And I want to make sure that this time you leave my ass bright red. Last time you only left me a bluish shade of pink and I was very disappointed.

 

[loveofreason]

That's due to your unusual skin condition, but if you'd like to pay for some candle work we could maybe tease out some first degree burns.

 

[NoID10ts]

Well okay.

BTW, it's nice to see you're now burning people in a non-venereal way.



But seriously, blot out all evidence of my existence from this place.

 

[loveofreason]

*giggles*

I blot you out of my mind all the time, that will have to do.

Leave the cash on the dresser in unmarked bills. Oh, and that is definitely not lipstick - it's not going to wash off. See a doctor. We used to have one round here somewhere....

 

[NoID10ts]

You've seen my true face, which is too horrible to blot out of anyone's mind.

What's this about cash? You used to let me pay you in Cheetos and Whiskey.

And the good doctor seemed to go into retirement once his services were no longer needed and his assistant left him for the circus. I hear he's retired and living in Florida now.

 

[loveofreason]

Your face? I thought that was a mock-up for Benjamin Button meets Godzilla.

Thanks, I have whiskey-guzzling brat to support now. You bastard.

What's the weather like in Florida?

 

[NoID10ts]

Hmmmm. Young Benjamin Button or old Benjamin Button? Old rubber Godzilla or new CGI Godzilla?

The weather's dreadful. Now one told me it was so fucking sunny here all the time.

 

[loveofreason]

Old rubber Godzilla and young Benjamin. And a touch of Robin Williams from that err.. Fisherking movie or whatever it was called. When he was a bum.

I hear sunlight is good for certain rashes.

 

[NoID10ts]

Oh, well I'm prettier than I thought!

The sun isn't good for rashes if you're a creature of the night. In that case the sun causes a rash and then spontaneous combustion.

Now I shall sleep and dream of you giving me a rash.

 

[loveofreason]

Babies are pretty?

Burn sleep well, my juicy dumpling

 

[echoplex]

Gotta love those gray conversations. Really giving the white a run for its money.

I can speak to the sunlight thing. I tend to get this horrible rash on my wrist, but after being outdoors more it appears to have vanished. *knocks on wood*

This is what ban-request threads turn into apparently.

 

[loveofreason]

Avoiding Noddy is also good for rashes.

Apparently

 

[Melkor]

What a charming and thought consuming thread. It is highly representative of the curious and handsome minded folk around here.


I'm going to kill you all, and I will make it look like an accident. You have been warned.

 

[NoID10ts]

It is charming, isn't it? I can't help but wonder why I'm not banned yet. After all this time, have I not earned this honor?

Melkor, you couldn't kill a one eyed, three legged puppy that was already bleeding to death.

 

[Melkor]

Oh, don't be silly, don't you know that if they try to ban you repeatedly and over a long peroid of time, they effectively cancel eahc other out and you are rendered immune to the banning process?

It's sortof how convicts escape the axe and Bush got in office.

What sort of a demon could bring themselves to do such a thing!? Psh, you couldn't kill a naked jesus hippy if his insides where on show , you were holding a machete and he was interpreting the scriptures through erotic dance on your knee.

 

[NoID10ts]

Ah yes. I suppose I'm already immune, aren't I? Perhaps I could take it to a new level and a new strand of banning would be more effective.

Well you're right about that. Curiously, that exact thing happened to me last Tuesday and I wasn't able to kill him. How could I kill someone who could do such a stirring rendition of the resurrection of Jesus with his penis?

 

[Jennywocky]

Oh, don't be silly, don't you know that if they try to ban you repeatedly and over a long peroid of time, they effectively cancel eahc other out and you are rendered immune to the banning process? It's sort of how convicts escape the axe and Bush got in office.

I thought it was because 58 million people simultaneously stopped taking their Haldol.

 

[NoID10ts]

Oh, I see. MunkeyHumper or whatever his name was gets banned after a couple of days while I've poured two years of my life into this place and can't get banned to save my life?

Outrageous!

I just stopped taking my Haldol.