banned for mine is just a response.

And I'm not really thinking Zen per say. I was thinking less meditative and more happy. The idea is not to see things clearer because of sex, but to just weed out some of the pessimism and anxiety that life brings. I guess it's akin to being on a constant, slight high, albeit a much better one than drugs produce.

Banned because your response 36226 seems semi-solipsistic and a tad oversensitive. 

I was mocking Scoutdog for an unusual moment of brevity. And I have no doubt that an active sex life can build intimacy with a partner and/or help keep one's neurochemistry on the cheerier side.

I'm really not sure how. None of this is "I think; therefore, I am." In fact, it's dependent on another person. It's not very philosophical at all, rather a practice in applied neurochemistry. As for the feeling better makes everything happier outlook, I guess that can be solipsistic, but only as a base function of starting you off on the right foot. Waking up happy doesn't necessarily hold up after a car accident and a pink slip.

I guess you must have inserted that tone into it. I was just answering the questions. Fairly 'matter of fact', all considering. Keep in mind that if I'm going to be angry or anything like that, I'll make absurd comments regarding what you can do with foreign objects and call your mother all forms of foulness. Otherwise, I'm just rolling along.

As for making fun of Scoutdog, have at. It's what he's good for.

Banned for forgetting to ban, and for assuming that I was trying to use solipsism seriously. 

It's nothing more than a deliberate misapplication of the term as trope for mocking Scoutdog's habit of completely ignoring preceding posts and banning no one in particular for something in his personal life. He obviously believes that the rest of us exist; he's just frustrated by the fact that we don't often don't fit neatly into his schemes for world domination or fan fiction success or whatever.

banned for WHY THE HELL DO I KEEP FORGETTING TO BAN!?!

See, that's anger.

And yes, he does seem to be a bit disconnected. Maybe he really doesn't think we exist?

Banned because that's exactly why I can't stop rattling his cage about those digressive bans. A good ban in that form would at least try to include a recent preceding ban, at least according to my reading of GeneralEtrius' recreational rule set.

Banned again because I never thought you were angry, I just wanted to pick on you for thinking that I was picking on you instead of Scoutdog. 

Banned because just mowed the lawn.

banned for destroying the green

Banned because modern industrial grass species (St. Augustine, etc.) are more masochistic than the average plant. They thrive on being chopped down regularly and need the regular waves of mass destruction to help keep their competitors away.

Banned because I've been tossing around an idea to help fix the military, but I'm not sure if it's really a good thing to include in my list: the basic premise is to forbid generals and military personnel from directly addressing the public or reporters. What happens seems to be that they come out in favor of something (usually more troops or more money), the public hears about it, and then civilian government feels strongly pressured to give them what they want (note that I don't think this is intentional on the generals' part. They just want stuff, have no qualms about asking for it, and it comes to them by a process they don't really understand). Instead, I think it would be better if generals and other military officials could only suggest or advocate directly to civilian leaders, removing the public pressure and in theory making said leaders a bit less likely to defer to the generals' whims. However, I am worried that it might instead end up insulating generals and other military officers from media scrutiny when they do or say something demonstrably wrong, which also poses a problem if the civvies are so deferent that the word of a general on his own can sway them.

EDIT: One other problem I can think of is that potentially the lion's share of the generals' babbling does not come from direct addresses, although they do make those, but rather from reporting to the appropriate civilian authorities in a way that is publicly available for accountability proposes but that the media still reports from the general's side. Case in point, the recent hearing with Adm. Mullen- it's him testifying to Congress in a perfectly appropriate manner, but the media is reporting the facts, advice, and dare I say it the spin as it comes out of Mullen's mouth, not Congress's.

Banned for reinforcing GW Swicord's ban

banned for quoting

Quoted for banning.

banned for holding your eyeballs

Banned for night 4 is in the books, and our moods have clearly gotten better over the last four days.

We eagerly continue the challenge.

banned for nonstop frogging

Banned because once or twice a day is hardly nonstop. I'm a Florida native and often listen to 'nothing' in the evenings, so I know frogs are way busier than that.

banned for being a neutral Thalan

Banned for "Gwaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaag!!!!!!!!"

banned for ralfing

banned for doing that to poor Ralph.

@ Scoutdog: seriously digressive.

@ JA: Already proving the theory, huh? Keep it up, so to speak.

Banned for yep, it definitely works.

banned for yeping

banned for maybe his wife likes it when he yeps

Banned for horrible, horrible thoughts.