Ok, I apologize from the bottom of my heart. Let’s drop it.
Say what you will about the pickup, but she sure can turn on a dime!
Tars, you’re the best!
Skipped over that the first time. Thanks, World Eater.
Ilsa, can’t say you were missed, especially now that you’re back and chirping for attention in badchad’s thread. Why don’t you just settle down to a nice, peaceful existence here?
And while you’re at it, why don’t you keep your silly coding to yourself? This isn’t the Super-Terrific Junior Playtime Coding Practice Hour. It slows down the Board and frankly, makes you look like an ass-nugget that’s barely clinging to the hairs, stinking with all its might, and just begging to be noticed.
I’m done here, but…
is funny as hell.
You call 45 responses ignored?
You call “CECIL ADAMS DOES NOT IDENTIFY ANY PARTICULAR INDIVIDUAL BUT WAS DEVISED AS A FANCIFUL NAME” inconclusive???
Let me try to explain for you. “Cecil Adams” is a fanciful name. A number of people have been “Cecil” in the last 30 years. If someone posts as “Cecil” it is likely one of the Administrators. What else is there to know?
What is this? A fucking trifecta? Lock this please.
If you want your thread locked you need to email a mod, not just repeatedly ask over and over in the thread. They have other things to do than peer over your shoulder, you know.
FWIW, I think Ilsa was pitting the entire SDMB staff for not giving a straight answer as to the true identity of Cecil. As for Lynn’s reasoning: there is no way to give a straight answer unless someone pulls a Carly Simon (i.e.: tells him but with a stiff penalty if the identity is ever revealed to anyone else). Ergo, the original thread had to be a joke.
Am I close?
Moderator’s Notes:
Ya know, Ilsa, your request(s) to lock this would be taken more seriously if ya’d quit posting to the goddamned thing.
I’m gonna tell you the same thing I tell everyone else who creates a situation simliar to the one you’ve created for yourself here. No. I’m not gonna close the thread. Let’s call it a test. We’ll see if you meant what you said up there, “Ok, I apologize from the bottom of my heart. Let’s drop it.” You can show your sincerity by not posting to this thread again. It’ll also go a long way toward convincing the staff that we were not remiss in lifting your suspension - which I gotta tell ya, I’m not too sure about right now.
The test begins . . . now.
UncleBeer: Is it still acceptable for others to post here?
I’d just like to say that at the time I flamed him, I was unaware Ilsa had previously requested the thread be locked.
Crikey :eek: - you’re right!
Of course I should have said:
Whom is this Cecil of which you speak? 
As for this Ilsa chappie, would it be a bannable offence to provoke him into posting here again? :smack:
Oh, it would?
Tempting…
(time passes)
OK, I can resist the temptation. 
Perhaps it’s an oral sex joke?
;j
Huh? Why?
Even if you were being prescriptive, you would use the nominative who as the complement of a linking verb.
“He is the man of which I speak,” not “Him is the man of which I speak.”