rigorousintuition.ca

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...]
*

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.

what can eye say? I've always been wary of the invisible hand.
if i must interact with the invisible hand, i'd at least like to know who it is attached to....

vanlose kid wrote: my better half emphatically nixes the kissing though. she's particular like that.

Perchance someone needs more info on the substantive issues which would form the foundation for the strategic alliance that these chaps are talking about:

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.

I think the idea of wikileaks is based on something like the system we have in Australia being more effective at limiting the govts ability to use power and limiting corporate tricks to dodge that power. IE If you assume that with an active populace and the tools available thru things like separation of powers, open judiciary etc etc then wikileaks will "work".

Thats why it is what it is. Its not a separate justice system, its a place for leaked documents.

One of the reasons there is so much sound and fury about wikileaks and JA is that the noise and fury stops the active and involved populace checking the documents themselves for important stuff.

If JA doesn't believe in "the system" even from a more libertarian POV then why create wikileaks and use the newspapers? Wikileaks is dependent on people people using to maintain openness in govt.

But then openness in govt is dependent on that anyway so its just another tool.

Just cos no one (well not necessarily no one - obviously thats not true cos we give a fuck) in the west gives a fuck about letting their govts stomp all over the world, doesn't mean people in other parts of the world don't either.


Since it all semantics tho, lets call them rightards, cos extreme right wing ideology has retarded their thinking.

IanEye wrote:
what can eye say? I've always been wary of the invisible hand.

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.

*

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.

.

looks like you're wrong there Jack: the motherf***er is uncivil to boot.

*

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 23#p378623

IanEye wrote:

.
if i must interact with the invisible hand, i'd at least like to know who it is attached to....


.

http://rigorousintuition.ca/board2/view ... 84#p378684

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.

*

this is my avatar.
in the spirit of openness, i am literally showing you, and anyone else who cares to read this board, who i am.
the human being being the avatar.

i was inspired by the Wombat to do this in the past.
he never asked me to do it then, and i ask of no one to do it now.

i'll leave it to the collected readership of this discussion board to decide for themselves if i was acting in bad faith with this action.

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 claimed or asked for.

^ ^

so.

what?

you're saying i f***ed up?

*

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.

Are you kidding?

.

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.

.

Do you guys need a moderator here, or can I continue to ignore this thread?

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.

.

i don't know what he's saying, he don't come across as entirely straightforward. either that or i just don't get what he is trying to say. -- like what is wrong with a motherf***er can't string one simple english sentence together?

here's what i think he's saying. this invisible hand bs started back in the strawman thread where he was "saying" all kinds of shit.

back then, the thread touching on economics somewhat, i thought he was referencing Adam Smith, but since it didn't make any sense to me why he would i just forgot about it.

then here he starts up on the invisible hand again with puppet drawings and sh*t and dragging my better half into it and i'm like "motherf***er, i knew i should never have mentioned her in this place, and now this".

that's really where he stepped over the line. motherf***er can call me whatever he wants, but he needs to learn how to behave.

and i asked him if i misunderstood anything because i may have, as he is not the most clearspoken.

barracuda wrote:Do you guys need a moderator here, or can I continue to ignore this thread?

your call dude. whatever you choose. i'm just tired of this sh*t.

i don't even want an apology or anything, just wish i hadn't mentioned my better half on here so this motherf***er could go ahead and f*** me up like this.

apologies for my language, too. i'm normally pretty ecological, which means i only cuss once a year and it's only janúary but this a**hole just got me using up my 2011 quota.

*

on edit: it's possible i've misunderstood this entire thing and if so tell me. i'll apologize.

*

I got the feeling you may have but anyway.... its not really my business.

I can understand being protective of your "better half" only too well.

I have yet to receive payment for posting here. Do I need to do a lot more of it?

barracuda wrote:Do you guys need a moderator here, or can I continue to ignore this thread?

I just wasted some time of my life wading through this thread. I would suggest continuing to ignore it, either that or shoot it in its head and put it out of its misery.

It had potential when it started, then turned into an argument about libertarianism and ......