@emsenn I didn't do or say that. You may block me, for any reason you like. But I still didn't say that.
@lunduke I said unfollow, not block, and requested you DM me, not reply publicly, and yes, you did; I won't show you the screenshot of your own words again.
I read your explanation; I'm a contractor in counterterror and there's no organization known as "Antifa," and no official or public list of domestic terror organizations. You're stating falsehoods about the governments concerns about terorrism to advocate against those who advocate against fascism.
Hm. I don't know you. I don't even know who you are. But I can say that you were not kind towards me.
You say that you have reasons to "unfollow" me. That is totally fine. But your reasons are false. You may still unfollow me, but to repeat untruths is not kind.
@lunduke You represent yourself as a brand online; you've named a self-produced show after yourself. You being aware of someone is not relevant to their ability to know enough to criticise you. Put simply; you're quite loud, you don't have to know me for me to know you.
@lunduke I also don't know if saying I'm unfollowing you, and saying why, because you're a marketer and knowing why engagement does or does not happen is part of that, is unkind. In fact, I meant it as a kind and personal gesture.
Now, what I've said since, since you denied the statement you'd conceded in other threads, is rather unkind. I can tell I don't like you.
Cool. Cool.
So. To sum up:
You found someone semi-sorta-pretendy-famous-lite on the Internet. You don't like that person. So you tell that person why you don't like them?
@lunduke No, originally I found someone who was an online marketer who's work otherwise would appeal to me, but had done this thing that disqualifies them as a potential relationship. So I let them know that.
What came after was based on yoru response, which I still view as a falsehood.
Huh. Okay then.
You want me to have said a thing.
I did not say the thing.
I believe that is the end of that until either
a) You decide that I did not say a thing or
b) I retroactively say the thing.
Good day, sir.
@lunduke Are you saying you did not write and publish within a Youtube video description, on October 9, 2017:
"Mozilla, maker of Firefox, has awarded $100,000 USD to fund the email for RiseUp.net. The email service used by Antifa -- a domestic terrorist organization within the United States."
?
If you did not say that, why is it under your byline, on your video?
@emsenn I definitely wrote that summary.
I was referring to specific government agencies (which I detailed in that episode) and their declaration of Antifa being a terrorist organization. I then went into some reporting (and some conjecture) about what that could mean -- from a legal and tax perspective, as well as from a marketing perspective -- for Mozilla.
It sounds to me like you just don't like the description - didn't contain those details.
But *I* still didn't call them that.
@lunduke You're right, I don't like the description, it's under your name and it's saying Antifa is a domestic terrorist organization. Repeating something as an undisclosed quote and then claiming you didn't mean its content as a quote is a really shady way to write.
You say Antifa in the title, you say Antifa, a domestic terrorist organization in the description. You're like, aware of search engines and keywords, right? This seems... shady, yeah.