Also ironically, the second definition of stalk is to "stride somewhere in a proud, stiff, or angry manner" which you did on your first post
but that's neither here nor there lol
Post by twetch#20137
You are correct about that definition of stalking being irrelevant. Glad you learned some vocab, though :)
From an outside perspective, I've only interacted with Kurt based on his Twetch accusing me of stalking, and I sure as fuck don't need his approval.
What the chain says
- Block
- 624 798
- Time
- 2020-03-04T22:36:41Z
- Signer
- 16BXp8aSKoQk3vq27RfCe4gPAnKwGCGPcV
- App
- twetch
- Type
- post
- Content type
- text/plain
- Name in tx
- twetch#20137
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
Signed by
16BXp8aSKoQk3vq27RfCe4gPAnKwGCGPcV VerifiedReplies (10)
But I appreciate the conversation, it helps me sympathize with all the idiots CSW deals with demanding that he sign as Satoshi.
Where's the mute button, @4?
that's hypocritical of every other post you made at this point, so either you have interacted with him before or today was your only interaction with him, can't be both ways. From that interaction you admitted others, so either your lying or stalking.
"An outside perspective" means the public record, by my definition.
Meaning there's no conversation between us that I know of, visible online, afaik.
In your ideal world, the burden of proof would be on an accused rapist... so I think we're done here.
In the public record you admitted to contacting him outside of twetch on your first twetch. there is burden of proof on both sides on any trial. It's both on the accuser to prove they've been wronged and it's on the defendant to prove innocence.
Contacting someone about a legitimate issue is not the same as stalking someone. I am willing to admit that maybe @292 was speaking an opinion rather than intending to maliciously defame me. If he doesn't keep harping on it, then that will be fine with me.