Will this one do?
4 Likes
Was your card theā¦erā¦ 20 of Rooks? (Wtf?)
Can you think of another one, but this time not show it to me?
3 Likes
You canāt see the eight of clubs Iām thinking of, right?
4 Likes
Shouldnāt you have mentioned that part up front? Shall I switch to using a standard deck then too?
1 Like
Do you want to use my irrational deck?
11 Likes
Shouldnāt there be a fractional heart on there?
2 Likes
Okay, what now?
Was your card theā¦dramatic pauseā¦
Jack of Hearts?
4 Likes
Would you like to try again? Oh, that wasnāt addressed to me was it?
Arenāt I getting confused?
Was this your card?
5 Likes
Close enuff?
5 Likes
Can I say Iām starting to see it now?
3 Likes
So does this prove we are the products of OtherMichaelās diseased imagination?
1 Like
9 Likes
Itās like the place is full of happy mutants or something isnāt it?
6 Likes
Or something?
3 Likes
Huh?
(
I just feel like this really isnāt in keeping with the spirit of the thing. As much as I like annotations, there just seems not to be any kind of a formula for excusatory reasoningness to the post-horizontal rule parentheticality. Now, if one could use the opportunity to opine on the topic of something relevant within the jurisdiction of such a principality, perhaps we could establish some ground rules for such a territory but as it happens, and the stakes being so high, we really need the progenitor in the form of one @othermichael to forge some legal writ and plant a flag of occupation to dismiss emnity in this dangerous zone. )
Donāt I sometimes call him on the parenthetical statements anyway, especially when they are overly long?
Have I mentioned, Iām a bit of a purist?
//cdck-file-uploads-global.s3.dualstack.us-west-2.amazonaws.com/boingboing/original/3X/f/f/ff59fc4074dce8d7d28457820d65e9ca48911af5.gif
4 Likes
Donāt I agree?
(Yes. Also, no likes have I.)
2 Likes
