What? No explanation of what you did to earn the almost-ban again?

Enquiring minds want to know.

tyrants would have worked better than tycoons. Maybe even terrible testicular tyrants of T&S.

David, they have the balls, but not the desire. Because they like you at the heart.

What the heck did you say????

Kaimi, There’s a reason why Times and Seasons is the arbiter of good taste on the bloggernacle, and nothing evidences this more than your ability to discern that the term lobe is a more appropriate than the term ball when used in connection with the atonement. It’s practically proof that you’ve once again made the right decision about banning me. (Don’t be self-conscious about flip-flopping like this — Romney does it all the time.)

Seth R and Kaimi, Here’s a Married to the Sea cartoon that hits the nail on the head.

For those who are interested, here’s a brief history of my banning from Times and Seasons:

The First Banning

Times and Seasons first banned me in response to my first two comment in the bloggernacle. They had a couple of posts about how important it was for commenters to be polite and respectful of others’ ideas. I left the comment, “This thread is a load of crap” on each. Both comments were promptly deleted, and I found myself banned next time I tried to comment. Alas, they relapsed from their sound judgment and rescinded the ban after they found out that I wasn’t a bot posting the same comment to multiple threads.

The Second Banning

The second time that Times and Seasons banned me occurred after months of rancor over my use of the term chick. But the last straw was when I insulted Neil LaBute. The conversation went like this:

Neil: [explaining why he won't be verbose] rather than leaving a slew of slighty pithy, mostly lame comments in my wake… i’ll simply thank you for your insightful comments about the international cinema….

Neil makes a few additional comments.

Me: Well, neil, it looks like, in spite of your best efforts, you’ve ended up “leaving a slew of slighty pithy, mostly lame comments in [your] wake.” The good news is that few of the rest of us lamoes will be quitting our day jobs. I guess the bad news is that you won’t either. I’ll just have to live with all the chatter about your movies and plays and whatnot, which are about as offinsive as the Care-Bears and in all the same ways.

Neil: i knew you’d show up, sooner or later — with nothing to say but taking up plenty of space. and yes, you’ll “just have to live with the chatter” about my work, which you at least know about whereas i don’t know (or care) who the hell you are. there is one way to forego that chatter, of course, and that is to get lost…

Me: At least Renée Zellweger never made anything of mine boring.

That last comment about Renée Zellweger was deleted by the admins. The exchange went on, and it proved to be too much. I think it’s fair to say that they came to their senses about their earlier decision to unleash me on their unsuspecting readers. I ended up in the mod queue and eventually banned again. (It was too bad, because that post contains one of my favorite comments ever.)

The Third Banning (this time around)

This time around, I posted this comment on Adam Greenwood’s “The Psychology of a Two-Lobed Atonement. The last line currently reads “Anyway, I’ve never heard the term lobe used this way. Why not use the term Care Bear?” It originally read:

Anyway, I’ve never heard the term lobe used this way. Why not use the term ball, as in “The Psychology of a Two-Balled Atonement”?

Before they edited this line (with my permission, of course), it went into the moderation queue to remove it from the site of readers. In response, I posted a link to a cartoon from Toothpaste for Dinner, which they promptly deleted. We continued our little dance of posting and deleting Toothpaste for Dinner cartoons, until I received a very polite email from an administrator asking my permission to edit the last line of my comment about Atonement balls and informing me that I’d be in the moderation queue. For the curious, I linked to the following cartoons:

This one.
This one.
This one.
This one.
And this one.

Oh, and in an earlier thread about a week ago, I drew attention to how Adam Greenwood is a pompous ass.

You guys remind me of the Seinfeld episode where Kramer has to separate Jerry and Elaine in a fight, and he exclaims “Can’t you see you’re in love?!!!”

DKL, if it makes you feel any better, I can have you banned at M* as well. :-)

Jonothan Green, come now, that sounds a bit defensive. Besides, I’m pretty sure that in order to be a martyr, one has to experience some kind of discomfort or distress.

Dan Ellsworth, stop it — you’re scaring me!

Ardis, LOL. I can’t believe you got your plug for cash in before I could.

Brian D, you would do that for me?

Matt W, far be it from me to betray your expectations.

Guy, yes, PayPal feeds my eBay habit. Send to AEParshall circleA AOL dottcom

DKL, you shouldn’t be surprised by my immediate exposure of our failed negotiations. I warned you. I also warned you that I would tell your bloggers about that OTHER matter (the one involving the dishwasher, the feather duster, and Obama’s barber) if you didn’t convince MorMen’s participants to pony up enough for your bail fund. Better get to groveling for their aid; contributions have been slow thus far …

DKL, I am pleased to inform you that the first dollar (well, 90c after PayPal fees) has rolled in! Whoo-hoo! It is accompanied by the note, “Please release him, let him go …”

I don’t know whether the contributor wishes to remain anonymous, or be publicly exposed and take the blame for your further comments. His first initial is “R.” — you can start pointing fingers at all the Richards and Ronalds and Russells until and unless the real culprit admits his folly.

Ardis, I’m guessing that the dollar came from Richard K. Klein, my old mission president at the MTC — the man who released me and let me go from my mission.

Thanks, Dan. I’ll be visiting more often, now that (thanks to Times and Seasons) I have so much more free time.

danithew, I see you are a net man, not a gross man. That pleases me. Gross men are, well, gross.

DKL, cynic that I am, I have concluded you deliberately act up at T&S to get banned so you can crow about it, especially now that you have your own blaarrgh. I am surprised you havent reinvigorated your claim to being the Most Reviled Person In The Bloggernacle®. This should surely reinforce it, since T&S is the Head of the Bloggernacle. Maybe if you create a Blogs 0 box at the top of LDSelect and have it span the entire length over the top of Blogs 1 and Blogs 2 and stick only T&S in it they will reinstate you?

I do remain, of course, the most reviled person in the bloggernacle.

Ah, all is good again in the universe. Deep sigh.

Strange theory? I dunno. It seems like a good fit to me. I mean, really, this is all just nothing but a sandbox for egos, right? And T&S last unbanned you after you rode in on your purple and white horse and stuck them in Box 1 when the Moarch had demoted them. All you need to do is ingratiate yourself with them again, pat Kaimi’s head a little and render Ardis her osculum infame, and then youll be back in their good graces again. Then you can be yourself and get banned again and post on MM about how unfair it was for the umpteenth time and Kaimi will whine about what a jerk you are and you will post links to internet comics. Everyone wins! Yay! Good times, again, and again. Shake, rinse, repeat.

Oh, it was just a big coincidence? Mea culpa.

Then, DKL, let me apologize fully and unequivocally for impugning your character and even suggesting at all that the entire thing is little more than exercise at self-absorbed, egocentric, petty narcissism. I mean, really, how I could ever come to such a conclusion is just absurd in the light of your denials.

Dan, you have this persistent thing where you follow people across blogs and threadjack with personal attacks. Grow up, or get yourself a pacifier.

Dan, you have followed me here from your personal blog and are threadjacking, just as you have done previously elsewhere (e.g., the 9M “stop threadjacking with your irrelevant personal political views” which you carried over from 9M to BCC a week or two ago). I am addressing DKL’s post, you are not. You are ventilating your spleen at me and are addressing my person, not DKL’s post. Trolls threadjack, Dan.

Clearly continuing replying to you only adds fuel to the fire. As such, you won’t get any reply from me from this time henceforth until you act more respectably, Kurt.

Dan, act more respectably? Like threadjacking with totally irrelevant personal attacks? Meeting that criteria will not be hard, Dan. Whether you frequent MM a lot or not is not at issue. Whether you posted anything substantive and relevant to this thread is, and you are found lacking, troll boy.

DKL, oh, good. I would hate for you to hold a grudge, after all, at most, I’m poking fun at you for being silly.

cantinaflas,

Dan’s comment in #28 and from then onward have nothing to do with this thread at all, or his preceding comment. If you go and look at his blog, you will see why he came here to troll. #18 was yesterday, from #28 on was today.

I came here to give DKL the same crap he was giving the T&S crew. If you have a problem with that, you have a problem with the original premise of DKL’s post.

oh man. DKL, this is too funny. reading your exchange with Neil LeBute had me in stitches. (seriously! I even like his films, mostly. Good for you; the Renee Zellweger remark was classic. You have some serious lobes.)

The question isn’t what age you are when you realize that your a consummate ass. The question is what age other people are when they realize that you’re a consummate ass.

The average age of someone who realizes that I’m a consummate ass is 33. How old is the average person who realizes that you’re an ass, Bookslinger?

LOL!

Bookslinger, I was kind of hoping you could tell who did and didn’t think you were a consummate ass, whether they told you or not.