The exception would be if you have 100% surveillance for a fixed window of time. But as long as @292 stops saying I stalked him, I don't care if he calls me a poo-poo head or whatever.
Ironically, he kinda stalked my Tweets when I was Bitcoin App Dev.
the burden of proof is on you at this point, because from an outside prospective you approached him on multiple platforms admittedly. an easy proof is to post the tweet saying "we're cool" proving he at one point approved interacting with you.
Fields the transaction did not carry are omitted. Open the payload to see the bytes as stored.
1G7oKHQe8sCCtvpGs9rXbshAqdPeCo8e2g VerifiedAlso 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
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.
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.