Why should you be banned!

[SushiShin]

you should be banned because im going see ya!

 

[Ruu~]

You should be banned because you have the legendary Astroboy on your avatar now.

 

[pugtm]

you should be banned because the person on your avatar is not famous enough for me to know

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

You should be banned because I'm about to eat an expired bento!

 

[bakaKanadajin]

You should be banned for letting that bento expire.

 

[Kirie_Maiden]

You should be banned for not thinking that it could have been bought expired. Stuff is cheaper that way!

 

[bakaKanadajin]

7-11, Family Mart and AMPM should be banned for selling expired bentos!!

 

[pugtm]

you should so be banned for breaking the laws of the holy church of banning by posting without a ban included. may the ban god have mercy on your soul.

 

[InfernalKalamity]

you should be banned because i dont know what bentos are.....

 

[pugtm]

you should be banned because you dont know what a bento is and you are on this forum. no really you really need to be banned.
(bento are boxed lunches that are sold in japan)

 

[Kirie_Maiden]

You should be banned because... what is the difference between Bento and Obento?

 

[Seon-a Kim]

Should be banned for not knowing the difference

 

[pugtm]

you should be banned for not explaining

 

[Kirie_Maiden]

You should be banned for also not explaining.

 

[Ruu~]

You should be banned because Nao (alice nine. drummer) is obsessed with both bento and obento.

 

[Mars Man]

No one should be banned for not having banned anyone else, since banning no one is not something to be banned for, although it is true that some have banned some for some reason other than their not having not banned anyone else--that is it had not been banning someone else for banning reasons.

This is true in that since banning for a reason is reasonably given as a reason for banning, it thus holds that reasons are reason enough for banning; therefore those who object with the contention that banning must have reason behind it are totally missing the point because banning someone for not having banned someone has reasonably been reasoned out to be reason enough for banning someone who has not banned anyone else--unless there is some other reason for that.

We can fairly conclude, then, after fairly reasoning through it all, that banning someone for having banned someone for whatever reason--though fair and reasonably it might be--is, in all fairness, no reason not to ban that person.

Having fairly presented, in a reasonable manner, my 'banning for banning in lines of banning for not having banned over and against that of not banning for having banned' case before this learned institution, I posit that it is beyond any reasonable doubt that it is both reasonable and fair that Kirie_Maiden should be banned. (besides...it looks like she's trying to spread S&M rituals with her Shinto ropes and stuff...)

edit: that's what happens after reading the thread on cannabis...and taking so long to write it up....

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

You should be banned for making me "high" without the help of chemical substances!

 

[pugtm]

you should be banned for having such a simple and logical explanation make you dizzy
way to go marsman always one with the logic
live long and prosper

 

[dark_secrester]

You should be banned because I have no money until tomorrow, and need some booze!!!

 

[Mikawa Ossan]

You should be banned for being a poor alcoholic!

 

[pugtm]

you should be banned because you didn't give him some sake or shnaps seriously.
ish clearly shays in the conshtitution* hick* shomething about alcoholic bevarages. neh?

*hick*

 

[EmperorHirohito]

You should be banned as I want to fly in that Boeing 757 in my avatar.

 

[Sarapva]

You should be banned for not having the Concorde in your avatar!

 

[SushiShin]

You all should be banned because im herbalicous?

 

[Kirie_Maiden]

You should be banned because Fergie will sue you.