Actually the first time she used it was as an adverb. 'being ignorant' describing how you are/were being.
The second time was as an adjective describing your first comment.
FYI
Close. If it was used as an adverb, a descriptor, the proper context would have been "VERB(ing) ignorantly."
Using it to describe "to be" with its spelling as an adjective (in the first case) is borderline ignorant. Since you cant really do that, 'verb' is the closest assessment I could some up with. I may need to consult with a few residents to SE DC for clarification, though.
Although the second use as an adjective is technically correct, the context in both cases (never mind the fact that the descriptor was used twice, in the first place) may indicate a lack of command over the English language which, in this particular case, is ironic since that's the accusation forwarded by the poster in question.
Nevertheless, you'll note that I did not question the accuracy of the description of the noun which, in this instance, is yours truly.
Pay it no mind. You continue leg humping. I'll continue "being."
