JackRiddler wrote:.
So now vanlose you must also say ianeye's not your enemy and not a blowhard (cos he's not). I command you both to kiss in public.
.
[...retracted...]
*
Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff
JackRiddler wrote:.
So now vanlose you must also say ianeye's not your enemy and not a blowhard (cos he's not). I command you both to kiss in public.
.
JackRiddler wrote:So now vanlose you must also say ianeye's not your enemy and not a blowhard (cos he's not). I command you both to kiss in public.
vanlose kid wrote:never thought he was, but i'll say it: IanEye is not my enemy and i apologize for calling him a blowhard.
vanlose kid wrote:my better half emphatically nixes the kissing though. she's particular like that.
wintler2 wrote:Thanks VK, interesting, maybe troubling. I'd like to think JA is just playing to the mainstream, as "more free and ethical" does sound horribly reformist.
IanEye wrote:
what can eye say? I've always been wary of the invisible hand.
JackRiddler wrote:.
So now vanlose you must also say ianeye's not your enemy and not a blowhard (cos he's not). I command you both to kiss in public.
.
IanEye wrote:.
if i must interact with the invisible hand, i'd at least like to know who it is attached to....
.
vanlose kid wrote:right. didn't get it the first time around. honestly thought you were referencing adam smith.
it seems you're trying to be cute. want to accuse me of being a sock-puppet without coming right out and saying it?
stupid f*ing blowhard.
*
to suggest that i have the power to travel back in time to force Ralph Nader to appear on Sesame Street, only so i can return to the present to make a point on this thread is according me far more power than i have ever ... asked for.
JackRiddler wrote:.
Okay, I don't get this.
What I understood at first is that ianeye posted pictures of himself with a muppet, and I get the impression he is, in fact, a puppet player. Is that so? (Are you with CTW/Sesame Street or some such?) I took the invisible hand stuff as riffs and jokes on puppetry, the theme of this thread (astroturf libertarians), Grover v. Grover (Norquist), IanEye's avatar kissing some guy, etc.. vanlose sees in it a direct accusation from IanEye that he, vanlose kid, is a sock puppet (of what or whom? vigilant?!). This is the part I don't get.
I am hereby no longer calling for anyone to make peace with anyone and declaring my ignorance about the dispute. I'd just like clarifications. Please. IanEye, without your usual clever ambiguous riffing with pics and vids (which I think you do well), are you in fact suggesting something like what vanlose is claiming? Shorter yet: What are you saying? And vanlose, what in what IanEye presents makes you think this accusation is being made? Thanks. Because I'm happy to say in this case that I am clueless.
.
barracuda wrote:Do you guys need a moderator here, or can I continue to ignore this thread?
barracuda wrote:Do you guys need a moderator here, or can I continue to ignore this thread?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 45 guests