Facebook is 20 today

@ghost-of-a-duke said
No, you just misunderstood what was plainly written.

It's your thing.

I said PettyTalk mentions "the twins" in his posts over and over and over and over again. And you said: "As you and Dive have with Rusty". This is plainly false.

@fmf said
I said PettyTalk mentions "the twins" in his posts over and over and over and over again. And you said: "As you and Dive have with Rusty". This is plainly false.

You do exactly the same thing with Rusty, repeatedly mentioning him in your posts.

What are you not getting?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You do exactly the same thing with Rusty, repeatedly mentioning him in your posts.

Is there something wrong with referencing him in some of my posts?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You do exactly the same thing with Rusty, repeatedly mentioning him in your posts.

What are you not getting?

In 2018, you didn’t engage Romans1009 at all for several months but you kept "referencing" him. Was that wrong for you to do?

@fmf said
Is there something wrong with referencing him in some of my posts?

Is there something wrong with Pesky referencing the twins?

@fmf said
In 2018, you didn’t engage Romans1009 at all for several months but you kept "referencing" him. Was that wrong for you to do?

You're the one complaining about it.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Is there something wrong with Pesky referencing the twins?

No, of course not. He can mention me by name or divegeester by name or mention "the twins" as often as wants - and he does, not only on this forum - but for you to push back against the suggestion that he is clearly obsessed with "FMF" and "divegeester" and "the twins" is ridiculous of you.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You're the one complaining about it.

I am not complaining about how you handled Romans1009. Not at all. I am asking you whether, when you didn’t engage him for several months and kept "referencing" him, was that wrong for you to do?

@fmf said
I am not complaining about how you handled Romans1009. Not at all. I am asking you whether, when you didn’t engage him for several months and kept "referencing" him, was that wrong for you to do?

Yawn.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Yawn.

It's an inconvenient question for you, that much is clear.

@fmf said
It's an inconvenient question for you, that much is clear.

It's a tiresome question, that's for sure.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
It's a tiresome question, that's for sure.

It's a question that hones in on the very heart of the hypocrisy being exhibited in your dj2becker-like banter.

@fmf said
It's a question that hones in on the very heart of the hypocrisy being exhibited in your dj2becker-like banter.

No sir. It is just another example of you not following what has clearly been said to you.

Like I said, it's tiresome.

No, of course not. He can mention me by name or divegeester by name or mention "the twins" as often as wants - and he does, not only on this forum - but for you to push back against the suggestion that he is clearly obsessed with "FMF" and "divegeester" and "the twins" is ridiculous of you.

@ghost-of-a-duke
BUMP

@fmf said
I am not complaining about how you handled Romans1009. Not at all. I am asking you whether, when you didn’t engage him for several months and kept "referencing" him, was that wrong for you to do?

@ghost-of-a-duke
BUMP