I would like to know who would like to ban me and why. Post like I'll never see it, because I'm unlikely to involve myself in anything petty. I think the whole public banning branch of Sciforums is petty, parsimonious, pusillanimous, and Puritanical. That's why I never post here.

I´ll not vote. What for? Do you want to look and wait how many will participate here. As a kind of experiment? Since Ban threads always get so
much attention? That could get interesting.

Not very interesting if you don't vote, is it (watch)....

See? We're bored now, and it's your fault.

Oh, so sorry. Then I´ll vote to please you.

Thank you. you are now in my good graces until I forget who you are.

Can you post threads thta depict evidence?

Tasteless. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=35065)
Also Tasteless. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32438)
Arrogant. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34722)
Dull. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34678)
Wrong. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=34512)
Inane. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=32046)
Unprovocative. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=17300)
Yellow-Bellied. (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=20288)
Wahabbin My Baby (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=31950)
Idealistic (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=27224)

I suppose if you're asking if you should be banned, yes is the only answer. I figure "Help hype, vote yes.". If someone else had asked I would have probably said no, but I'm not sure. I do not like you in general so I might vote yes to ban you just to enjoy the thought of your banning.

On the other hand, I don't really care if you stay around or not and I don't expect the results of this poll to be taken seriously, or that it will be in favor of your banning.

what the nerd said

All these self-banning polls are silly and pointless. If someone wanted you banned, you would know it by now. If anyone wants to be banned, it is easy. It is called "leaving". I don't think anyone has asked you to do either, AFAIK.

I voted no. The reason I voted no is because he's right. Most of the ban threads are nothing but a lynch mob, as I have stated in the past. It should be the sole discretion of the moderators/admins of this forum to ban those people they see fit to ban. It should not be in the hands of people who have nothing better to do then pick on others from the safety of their little clique. Ban threads are frivilous and only point out stupidities on both sides and make people feel unwelcome despite the end result.

Ardi, as I've pointed out before ... Porfiry has veto power over all ban threads. Hence, if there is a lynch mob, he still has the right and the ability to reject it.

Still doesn't change my view. Even if he veto'ed it, the person the thread was about would still feel singled out and uncomfortable. And the way people get insulted and mocked in those threads is simply not pleasent. Admins/Mods are the only ones who should have the ability ban people. If you simply don't like someone, complain to the mods or use the ignore button. It's better than voting them off the island in some sort of popularity contest.

Even if he veto'ed it, the person the thread was about would still feel singled out and uncomfortable.
Yeah, but that is not what is happening here. Hypewaders started this poll himself. If he feels singled out and uncomfortable, that is the price of standing up and asking for a vote on how popular you are at the moment. The whole concept is childish.

I would never vote to ban him based on this, but I don't mind saying my respect for him has dropped a notch. And I only say that because he has publicly asked.

I tempted to vote yes, because I think it is just silly to start a ban thread for yourself.


Can this please end?

Could there be a rule that states that you are not allowed to start a ban thread on yourself?

The punishment being a ban?

No, the punishment should not be a ban. The thread should just be closed and locked and dumped into the Cesspool as pointless and stupid. It is a waste of bandwidth and time (he says as he posts for the third time on the thread. Hmmm, a tad hypocritical perhaps. Ok, I am done).

(the punishment of a ban was a slight humurous touch. Should have used a smiley, like so: :D)

I would vote yes if it was just yes with no "let me explain', I don't want to explain, so i'll abstain from voting.

I had not checked to see if "self-banning" threads were already here. It was just another lame pot-shot at these type threads, so we can let it die like all failed attempts at humor. I also was curious about my most annoying habits, but my detractors don't seem to want to be specific. Total failure on both counts. As punishment, I am banning myself until further notice.

LOL.

I have been excrutiatingly specific about my reservations towards you hype. I think that failing to bring up those specifics here serves a general lack of animosity that I'd like to maintain. If you're actually interested in why you suck and remotely care about this detractor's perspective on the issue, google your way through the archives.

Can I ask a quick question? Why all the 'ban me, myself and I' threads lately? Is it a way of seeing if you're popular and liked or otherwise? The fact that this one is a public viewed poll makes me think that it could be a popularity contest as the one who wants to see if he/she should be banned can then see who does want to ban them.

It's all kind of pointless don't you think? No offence hype, but why did you really start this thread? If you think someone has something against you, I'm sure they'll tell you or you could just ask them.

Why all the 'ban me, myself and I' threads lately? Is it a way of seeing if you're popular and liked or otherwise?

It seems equivalent to the insecure lover's passive aggressive demand for attention:

*sob*

"YOU DON'T LOVE ME ANYMORE, DO YOU!?!?!?"

*sobs profusely*

*you continue trying to study or play a game, pause and ask*

"What are you talking about?"

*aghast sobbing*

"Oh NEVERMIND!"

*sobs and slams a door*

voted yes, reason being, starting yet another ban thread about one self and voting no to top it off, Here your ticket byebye.

p.s.
it's a return ticket.

LOL Wes... like sands through the hourglass.. and so are the days of our lives :p..

Classically done Wes..:D

I hadn't checked the poll results before but HAHAHAHAHA!!! Hype, when you start these threads about yourself, decorum would dictate that you don't vote in them yourself.:p

How come there are so many neurotic people here?
Can the intelligent community show at least SOME little bit of intelligence?

How come there are so many neurotic people here?
Can the intelligent community show at least SOME little bit of intelligence?

Intelligence and neuroticism are not mutually exclusive. The line between the two is always blurred.

Neuroticism and intelligence have little to do with each other. I want people to be less neurotic and smarter.
I can't believe I voted! I didn't notice who started the thread! Please don't count my vote....

Neuroticism and intelligence have little to do with each other. I want people to be less neurotic and smarter.


Ohhhh so wrong. The biggest neuorotic cases are the smart ones...ones who think too much.

Example: Why did you vote not knowing who started the thread and now you're asking to please not count your vote because you can't believe you voted?

Neuroticism isn't limited to intellectuals but most intellectuals, more often than not, are weirdos in that way.

Just because I frantically call not to count my vote, does not mean I am intelligent and neurotic. I can be neurotic and obtuse.
I didn't think too much when I voted, I just saw the thread and voted. :p

So far, the "mentally conflicted" choice is the most popular, but these individuals are repressed in voting honestly. And of course I can vote in my own damn poll, troll drolly in my poll. This was the miniscule point of this thread, and as my thread, which is mine, it may have a very small point. But it's part of my Doctoral Thesis in pathetic ghouls. Now stop posting unless you'll play by the rules and tell me why you don't love me, Wes.

OK, Ready for the big flush here.

You wait for a love letter from him? Nah. He only writes those for Tiassa, because Tiassa writes love novels :D

I voted yes if that counts for anything.

It is unecessary, counterproductive and utter folly for the USA to allow herself to be drawn into an absurdly retro colonial posture, right over a chopping block that all the world can see, excepting those individuals sufficiantly blinded by unjustifiable yet stupendous American hubris, complacency, self-centeredness, and (in face of the results)- denial.

For whitewolf, a little love in Hype's direction. This single sentence perfectly illustrates why I find him basically useless.

I'll break it down:

It is unecessary,
Opinion stated as fact and completely unfounded. Zero supporting argument.

counterproductive

Opinion stated as fact and completely unfounded. Zero supporting argument.

and utter folly
Opinion stated as fact and completely unfounded. Zero supporting argument.

for the USA to allow herself to be drawn
Wholly debatable since the US has taken an agressive role.

into an absurdly
Opinion stated as fact and completely unfounded. Zero supporting argument.

retro colonial posture
UTTER NONSENSE, in complete denial of the fact that the countries sovereignty is being returned to them this month. Further, US policy has not started shipping US citizens to colonize Iraq, nor have we claimed ownership of any of their resources.

right over a chopping block
Opinion stated as fact and completely unfounded. Zero supporting argument.

that all the world can see,
The world can see what we do. Many of them support our actions. Today's media is can be manipulated, but not shut down - so of course the world can see something. Of course, hype's narrow-minded, dogmatic position doesn't allow him to account for distortion in the media unless it strengthens, rather that diminishes his case.

excepting those individuals
of course the great master of dogma, hype himself is completely immune to the dangers his following complaints.

sufficiantly blinded
demonize the opposers. ad hominem? if they disagree, tell them they're blind. classic propaganda to fit the mode of basically every post i've ever seen with 'hypewaders' as author.

by unjustifiable
more of the same, this time putting his brand of reality above all others. IMO, calling something 'unjustifiable' is basically saying "i don't understand the decision and don't approve of it, so it must be wrong." fallacy anyone? of course since those who oppose him are unjustifiable and sufficiently blind hype is off the hook. he doesn't have to bother trying to understand how opposing opinions are subjectively justified because they are stupid and blind and unworthy of his effort. yes it's an easy road for hype.

yet stupendous American hubris
of course it's everyone's hubris but his own.

, complacency
LOL. Who is complacent here? Seems to me by demonizing and alienating the opposition, you've become what you claim to loath.

, self-centeredness,
that is RICH considering the context of the accusation. perhaps someone so dog-a-matic is indeed just a puppet for someone else, or for a 'canned world view' such that he is incapable of self-love. i still think though, that by the definition of calling opposing opinions 'blind' he has established an extremely self-centered, holier than thou attitude. i believe it shows through well with the tone of the sentence under scrutiny and the original message, in his first post on this page (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?p=597621#post597621).

and (in face of the results)- denial.
All of the self-involved, self-serving, rhetorical bullshit and then the conclusion above. I ask seriously: How do you rationally base this conclusion on the total shit used to reach it? IMO, the rational basis is that you are completely irrational. I dub thee asshat.

First time I've ever voted 'yes' in a ban poll. But I figure hype must either be in a masoschistic mood, in which case I believe he should be indulged, or perhaps he's looking for affirmation from the board for his presence, in which case it would be sort of funny to see more 'yes' votes for banning (not that I particularly want him banned), or possibly he just wanted to see how many idiots he could drag into yet another stupid 'ban so and so' thread, in which case, I just bit.

Hype : You want attention?

Actually, from anyone who supports the U.S. occupation of Iraq, why yes, I do. They're all scurrying around with their tails between their legs- Wes for example feigns indignance at my opinion, then dismisses it- and then oafishly psychoanalyzes it... all the while dancing around a statement I have made that he cannot confront in its substance. I was curious to compare his political debate with personal attack, and his post has satisfied. Draw your own conclusions, I'm not here to share mine on this one, this being my personal thread. Mine, I tell you. I trolled with a clear conscience (ever had one, Wes?) for as long as it lasted (please flush). All in all, it's been a mildly amusing thread, requiring little effort, and I recommend it highly when all inspiration fails. And if nothing else at all, it has been at least as useful as any other thread in this section.