Worst interpretation of the rules ever?

[Biffoniacus_Furiou]

2. the amount of attacks your BAB bonus allows is your number of standard actions per round, yes even for spellcasters. i dont even know how they came to that conclusion

I've actually seen someone try this before, something to do with the Invisibility spell's definition of an attack. It requires you to completely ignore the line, "For purposes of this spell," and impose that definition on the rules on making a full attack. It's completely silly, and luckily I was able to convincingly argue against it at the time.