Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

I already did.....

Stop lying about it.

 

Since you refuse to specify we are gonna do this MY way.

Although the number 1002 is high number.  As I have always said I don't mind being tagged in a thread by you when it is a thread I am ALREADY POSTING IN and the overwhelming majority have my tags to you are in threads you are posting in.  318 (added in R. Suave) is a low number.  The overwhelming majority of tags I get from you are in threads where I am not participating, were you are begging for my attention.  

There is your answer. 

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Since you refuse to specify we are gonna do this MY way.

Although the number 1002 is high number.  

:rofl:  

Huey » 18 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

18 minutes ago

Since you refuse to specify we are gonna do this MY way.

Although the number 1002 is high number.  As I have always said I don't mind being tagged in a thread by you when it is a thread I am ALREADY POSTING IN and the overwhelming majority have my tags to you are in threads you are posting in.  318 (added in R. Suave) is a low number.  The overwhelming majority of tags I get from you are in threads where I am not participating, were you are begging for my attention.  

There is your answer.

Read the question again 

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

 

 

Since you refuse to specify we are gonna do this MY way.

Although the number 1002 is high number.  As I have always said I don't mind being tagged in a thread by you when it is a thread I am ALREADY POSTING IN and the overwhelming majority have my tags to you are in threads you are posting in.  318 (added in R. Suave) is a low number.  The overwhelming majority of tags I get from you are in threads where I am not participating, were you are begging for my attention.  

There is your answer. 

The Fairy demands I answer, I do, and then he deletes the answer in his reply.  You can't be trusted to be honest so no more questions. 
 

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

Read the question again 

 

I told you since you refused to say what the numbers represent I was going to do it my way.  No more questions.  You are a dishonest prick.

Huey » 6 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

6 minutes ago

I told you since you refused to say what the numbers represent I was going to do it my way.  No more questions.  You are a dishonest prick.

I told you what they represent...

And you vaguely understood what you were told as evidenced by your response.

If you refuse to answer questions, we aren't doing it my way...we're trying to reverse engineer your stupidity.

Blackvegetable » 2 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

2 minutes ago

I told you what they represent...

And you vaguely understood what you were told as evidenced by your response.

If you refuse to answer questions, we aren't doing it my way...we're trying to reverse engineer your stupidity.

 

Fairy, you told tell me what they represent.  But I figured it out and your question was answered.  No more questions.

Since you refuse to specify we are gonna do this MY way.

Although the number 1002 is high number.  As I have always said I don't mind being tagged in a thread by you when it is a thread I am ALREADY POSTING IN and the overwhelming majority have my tags to you are in threads you are posting in.  318 (added in R. Suave) is a low number.  The overwhelming majority of tags I get from you are in threads where I am not participating, were you are begging for my attention.  

There is your answer. 
 

Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

Fairy, you told tell me what they represent.  But I figured it out and 



There is your answer.

I told you.

You figured it out.

I count two stands.

There is your answer

Not to my question...

Why your "pledge" is a sham.

Blackvegetable » 4 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

4 minutes ago

I told you.

You figured it out.

I count two stands.


Not to my question...

Why your "pledge" is a sham.

 

I count one stand, Fairy.  You gotta the context of what I said.  That is why you are known as a dishonest cowardly prick, Too Far.

Huey » 7 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

7 minutes ago

I count one stand, Fairy.  You gotta the context of what I said.  That is why you are known as a dishonest cowardly prick, Too Far.

Either 

I told you


or


You figured it out


These ARE mutually exclusive....
 

BV is a **** pos liberal shill

Blackvegetable » 34 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

34 minutes ago

Either 

I told you

or

You figured it out

These ARE mutually exclusive....

You’re turning into a pretzel.  

Huey » 10 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

10 minutes ago

You’re turning into a pretzel.

Why do you waste your time talking to him?

Huey » 15 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

15 minutes ago

You’re turning into a pretzel.

What did I twist?


Your words?

Blackvegetable » 3 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

3 minutes ago

What did I twist?

Your words?

Thats a question.

Huey » 16 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

16 minutes ago

Thats a question.

Think of it as a request for clarification....

Blackvegetable » 14 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

14 minutes ago

Think of it as a request for clarification....

Ok.  Cool.  This means you will clarify when asked.

you are taking my stance on tagging out of context.  I posted it earlier.  Won’t do it again since you deleted it from a reply.

Huey » 40 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

40 minutes ago

Ok.  Cool.  This means you will clarify when asked.

you are taking my stance on tagging out of context.  I posted it earlier.  Won’t do it again since you deleted it from a reply.

It had nothing to do with "taking (your) stance on tagging out of context"

Blackvegetable » 50 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

50 minutes ago

Huey » Today, 12:03 pm » wrote: ↑

Today, 12:03 pm

Ok.  Cool.  This means you will clarify when asked.

you are taking my stance on tagging out of context.  I posted it earlier.  Won’t do it again since you deleted it from a reply.

It had nothing to do with "taking (your) stance on tagging out of context"

 

If you took it in context you would have no argument.  So you have to remove context so you can be a dick.

Huey » 9 minutes ago » wrote: ↑

9 minutes ago

If you took it in context you would have no argument.  So you have to remove context so you can be a dick.

It's not about my argument...

It is about you taking another mutually exclusive pair of stances.