As long as the meaning is clear, I don’t see a problem with it. Besides, it’s not like Dissonance said “I disagree with your use of the word ‘ban’ in this situation.”
Anyway, I have a hunch that your real problem is not that I am using the word “ban” in an unconventional way.
You’re right there. I was blithely unaware of your existence at all until this thread, let alone your…unique approach to debating. But damn. What an obnoxious way to behave in a nice public forum. But don’t worry about me or my opinions. I’ll go right back to not knowing who you are again.
Still, if you’d just change the heavily loaded word “ban” to the more accurate “ignore”, I suspect you’d find a fair bit of the ire directed toward you would disappear.
I’m not sure I would call this a “nice public forum.” For example, in this very thread, I have been called a “dickweed,” a “moronic douchebag,” an “internet asshole,” and probably other stuff by people who are on my ignore list.
Perhaps, but if you look at the thread in question, it does not appear that I used the word “ban.” What I said was that I would “no longer engage” (with Sherwood Anderson.)
Can you guess why I didn’t say that? The problem isn’t our disagreement of your use of the word ‘ban’ in this situation. The problem is that you are delusionally misusing the word. Feel free to continue doing so, it’s amusing in its sad little patheticness; but don’t expect the rest of the world to entertain your redefinition of the word.
You’re big on your own rules. Have you checked the rules of this forum?
This is the PIT. It’s the only forum on the SDMB where such direct name calling is allowed.
That kind of name-calling would absolutely not be allowed in GD.
If you’re going to make an asinine point, at least support it with some better facts than these.
Well what exactly is the delusion?
And the rules of the PIT also allow me to state that I will no longer engage with a particular poster, agreed?
See? It’s about all people coming together to share their opinions.
Sure, and my opinion is that I prefer not to engage any further with Sherwood Anderson. 
Umm, they were being nice. :eek:
CMC fnord!
Can someone who has already been to his blog give me one of the rules so that I might get his “ban” stick? I have no desire to visit his blog myself and therefore help contribute to the $1.27 yearly check he gets for hosting Google AdWords links or whatever affiliate-advertising method he uses.
For the purposes of this thread, I will define “ban” as a verb meaning “I expect this person to eventually earn an IMDB credit for their kitten-squish videos.”
So, who wants to be banned by me?
I think this one is pretty funny:
[QUOTE=brazil’s rules of moderation]
Further, if your posts are consistently incoherent, I will ban you. If you feel that my posts are consistently incoherent, you are free to stop reading them.
[/QUOTE]
Especially since the latter part translates to “don’t bother me if you think I’m being incoherent”.
But OTOH, this one is tested and proven:
[QUOTE=brazil’s rules of moderation]
Rule 1 No strawmen. While debating, you are not allowed to misrepresent what I say. Similarly, I will not misrepresent your position. If you state or imply that my position is different from what I have actually said, I will call on you to ’show me where I said it.’ You must either do so or own up and apologize. Otherwise I will ban you.
Similarly, if you argue against a position which I do not dispute — while pretending to be contradicting me, you are attacking a straw man.
Another form of strawmanning is to interpret my statements in an unreasonable way. For example, if I claim that men are taller than women, it would be unreasonable to interpret this as a claim that every man is taller than every woman. Or if I claim that smoking has been proven to cause lung cancer, I am obviously talking about proof in the scientific sense — not in a mathematical or logical sense. If you interpret my words unreasonably, I will correct you and you will be expected to to continue the discussion using the correct interpretation.
In addition, if I make a claim which is unclear or open to misinterpretation and subsequently clarify my position, you must argue against the clarified position. If I abandon a claim either because I think I was wrong or I am doing so for the sake of argument, you are strawmanning if you continue to argue against that claim.
[/QUOTE]
Note that there’s no necessity for the misrepresentation to be intentional; or rather, if you wont offer brazil an apology, then it was ipso facto intentional…
But don’t you need japanese chicks in high heels for those videos?
That’s it, you’re banned!
Again!? Fuck.
And I was being nicer 
Setting rules for debating on the internet – Isn’t that a little like setting rules for flinging poo at the monkey-house?
Just for that, I ban you!
Ban you, ban me
Ban us for always
That’s the way it should be
Ban you, ban me
Ban us together
Naturally