1001 replies to this topic

[Banjo7J]

You're banned because someone made that reference two three pages ago. That and, why would no-one get it, YGOTAS is quite popular.

EDIT: And I have once again killed the thread.

Edited by Banjo7J, 09 October 2011 - 01:23 PM.

[Mero]

You're banned for killing the thread, again, and again and ain.

[Ventus]

Your banned Cuz I'm so weak..

[Mero]

You're banned because I disagree cus you're probably stronger then me.

[Banjo7J]

You're banned because this thread is going really slowly right now.

Edited by Banjo7J, 10 October 2011 - 12:58 PM.

[Russ]

You're banned because a reply in under one minute refutes that statement.

[Banjo7J]

You're banned because this reply refutes your refutement (Refution?) by me not noticing you posted that quickly.

[Russ]

You're banned because the mentioning of refuting refutements made the Miles Edgeworth Rebuttal theme start playing in my head. Dang you.

[Avaro]

You're banned because the bad grammar. It should be: "..because OF the mentioning..".
Man, some people just don't understand english grammar.

Edited by Avataro, 10 October 2011 - 01:48 PM.

[Russ]

HOLD IT! I think I'm right here, actually. "the mentioning of refuting refutements" is the subject (well the subject plus a prepositional phrase). "made" is the verb. So let's simplify the sentence a bit. "You're banned because the mentioning made me mad." That makes sense, doesn't it? If I had said "You're banned because of the mentioning made me mad", it would make no sense. It would, however, if I just said "You're banned because of the mentioning."

... you're banned for making me type all that out.

[Banjo7J]

You're banned because Russ's grammar is perfectly fine. He said "[statement] because [action] made me [reaction]", which is correct. You're probably getting confused with "Because of [action], I [reaction]". Which, with the statement beforehand, would make no sense. "Because" is the reason for [statement], not [reaction].

EDIT:You're banned for trying to be a ninja lawyer.

EDIT2: Also, to expand on your explanation, if you were to combine "You're banned because of the mentioning" with the actual reason, it would become "You're banned because of the mentioning of refuting refutements, which made the Miles Edgeworth Rebuttal theme start playing in my head. Dang you." Yay, grammar.

Edited by Banjo7J, 10 October 2011 - 01:58 PM.

[Russ]

You're banned because a ninja lawyer is the greatest mental image I've had in a while.

[Avaro]

You're banned becaues what?? Nah, I know that I was right xD

[Russ]

You're banned because after all the PW references, followed by you insisting that you were right, I almost shouted Objection...

[Banjo7J]

You're banned because you weren't. The sentence "You're banned because of the mentioning of refuting refutements made the Miles Edgeworth Rebuttal theme start playing in my head. Dang you." makes no sense. In that sentence "the mentioning of refuting refutements made the Miles Edgeworth Rebuttal theme start playing in my head" would be the reason I'm banned, and it doesn't make sense; a reason can't have an action and a reaction. When there's more than one action, there's more than one reason.

You're banned because a ninja lawyer is the greatest mental image I've had in a while.

You're not banned because I agree.

EDIT:Seriously, did you go to Ninja Law School? Anyway, you're banned because I'm not sure if you meant you nearly typed in "OBJECTION!" or if you meant literally shouting it out loud. I'm hoping the former, but the latter would be funnier.

Edited by Banjo7J, 10 October 2011 - 02:07 PM.