Ban the post above you! Game!

It seems as though that is a standard answer when banning someone for banning because they use something in thier post. Somehow, this standard on following "banned because..." with "banned for not.." is a merry-go-round of some strange unwritten "must do when having been done" rule is applied. As I feel this is a unproven need on this thread, I feel we must break this cycle, free the bonds, realease thebans, and be outside the box.

What I am trying to say is you are stinking banned for a stock reply. Get back to the drawing board, Qwark. Somewhere else then here. For you are banned.
 
MIssion accomplished.
I want all as confused as me as I make life up as I go.

Banned for not seeing being confused as a sign of strength, which it of course is.
 
Ummm.... Errrr.... Well...

Okay,here is a first. I have no Earthly clue how to respond to that one, and now I am truly confused. Just banned.
 
Banned for using obscure rock albums. You said they were obscure so that means 'not well known'. :P
 

Similar threads

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
333,667
Messages
2,256,615
Members
428,711
Latest member
@shubhadip