Originally posted by @dj2beckerEveryone is entitled to their own brand of banter. My criticisms of Romans1009's behaviour are there for you to address if you want to.
If Dive is entitled to his own brand of banter why don't you allow Romans the same luxury?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAre you now going to pretend to not have read any of my posts on the subject of Romans1009's behaviour that I have posted over the last - say - 72 hours? Is this the return of your go-to gimmick?
If as you say Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter why are you cliticizing him for it?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfYou are entitled to your subjective opinions just like Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter. Get over yourself.
Are you now going to pretend to not have read any of my posts on the subject of Romans1009's behaviour that I have posted over the last - say - 72 hours? Is this the return of your go-to gimmick?
Originally posted by @dj2beckerYour use of that gimmick of yours, yet again, is noted.
You are entitled to your subjective opinions just like Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter. Get over yourself.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerAre you still pretending not to know what the criticisms of Romans1009 are?
You should call things as you see them, I do.
Originally posted by @dj2beckerWhat I am saying is, if you ask me - on this page - after all that's gone on in the last 2-3 days - and further back than that - and after what has been explicitly said on THIS thread - if, after all that, you ask me: "If as you say Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter why are you cliticizing him for it?' then one can only conclude that you are pretending not to have read any of my posts where the answer to your disinigenous question can be found staring you in your face.
So in your mind when I say you are entitled to your subjective opinions, you take that to mean that I haven't read your criticisms of Romans?
- Joined
- 01 Oct 04
- Moves
- 12095
Originally posted by @fmfI have obviously read your posts and you do not sound like someone who actually believes that Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter. Because if you did believe that it wouldn't make sense for you to criticize him for it.
What I am saying is, if you ask me - on this page - after all that's gone on in the last 2-3 days - and further back than that - and after what has been explicitly said on THIS thread - if, after all that, you ask me: [b]"If as you say Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter why are you cliticizing him for it?' then one can only conclude that you are ...[text shortened]... f my posts where the answer to your disinigenous question can be found staring you in your face.[/b]
Originally posted by @dj2beckerMmmm. Still pretending not to know what he is being criticized for?
I have obviously read your posts and you do not sound like someone who actually believes that Romans is entitled to his own brand of banter. Because if you did believe that it wouldn't make sense for you to criticize him for it.