Adieu

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Please do, and a note below explaining how you alone took it seriously.

So it wasn't an apology?

@fmf said

Is it true that I need "professional help" as Very Rusty and Woofwoof have suggested?

I have no idea. You certainly have issues of toxicity.

@fmf said
You think I "dug up"

You dug up the old issue of the radio show that led to these exchanges. And yet criticize heavily the bringing up of Dive's death prank.

@fmf said
So it wasn't an apology?

Of course not. No lie was made.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You dug up the old issue of the radio show that led to these exchanges. And yet criticize heavily the bringing up of Dive's death prank.

And [you] yet criticize heavily the bringing up of Dive's death prank.

You can bring it up as often as you want.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I have no idea. You certainly have issues of toxicity.

You have "no idea"? So you think Very Rusty and Woofwoof MAY be right to say that I need "professional help"? Do you think I do?

@fmf said
And [you] yet criticize heavily the bringing up of Dive's death prank.

You can bring it up as often as you want.

You constantly reference how many years ago it occurred, when the Radio show thing dates back even further. It reeks of inconsistency.

@fmf said
You have "no idea"? So you think Very Rusty and Woofwoof MAY be right to say that I need "professional help"? Do you think I do?

I've never met you in real life. The most I can say is that you have an unhealthy toxicity.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
You constantly reference how many years ago it occurred, when the Radio show thing dates back even further. It reeks of inconsistency.

Your malicious action over the radio programme was intended to damage people. "The prank" was not and did not. They are different things altogether. It is you who collates them.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
I've never met you in real life. The most I can say is that you have an unhealthy toxicity.

Call it how you see it. You can use the words "toxic" and "toxicity" as often as you feel the need to. Do you think Very Rusty and Woofwoof MAY be right to say that I need "professional help" even though they have never met me in real life?

@fmf said
Your malicious action over the radio programme was intended to damage people. "The prank" was not and did not. They are different things altogether. It is you who collates them.

The malicious action started and finished with you. Again, for your scenario to be genuine it would require a series of coincidences that simply aren't credible.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The malicious action started and finished with you. Again, for your scenario to be genuine it would require a series of coincidences that simply aren't credible.

The malicious action started and finished with you.

There was nothing "malicious" about using a light-hearted pseudonym in order to put a second story in the show.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
The malicious action started and finished with you. Again, for your scenario to be genuine it would require a series of coincidences that simply aren't credible.

Again, for your scenario to be genuine it would require a series of coincidences that simply aren't credible.

My "scenario" is genuine and there are no "coincidences" involved.

@fmf said
Call it how you see it. You can use the words "toxic" and "toxicity" as often as you feel the need to. Do you think Very Rusty and Woofwoof MAY be right to say that I need "professional help" even though they have never met me in real life?

Of course they could be right. Nobody is immune to mental health issues. On internet forums however, it is usually a throw away comment not a diagnosis.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Of course they could be right. Nobody is immune to mental health issues. On internet forums however, it is usually a throw away comment not a diagnosis.

So if they called me "senile", for example, you wouldn't have any objection?