>When you say "stalking", do you mean dude is intruding into
>your private life on OKP?

Perhaps I'm the idiot for assuming that everyone understands the rather clear context of my use of the term "stalking", but but there it is.

>Or do you mean you have allowed him to antagonize you with
>replies on a public message board?
>
>Because only one of those is actually stalking.

Sure, if you're being intentionally dishonest about the obvious context if my use of the term "stalking".

I'll humor you and assume you're not just playing dumb. I clearly mean "stalking" in regard to his continued habit of following my posts and deliberately trying to antagonize me here on OKP. I avoid his posts and it's rare when I actually reply to a post of his, yet he's always good for some snark no matter what I post or when I post.

Now, if you want to nitpick my phrasing to death and pretend that I'm not saying it in an obviously specific context so you can feel comfortable saying CT is crazy, knock yourself out. You and I both know that's a dishonest conclusion but whatever.

Oh, and this nonsense about me "allowing" him to antagonize me is dishonest as well. He says what he says whether I respond or not.when I choose to ignore him, his comments are still there, and yet I'm still the guy you have an issue with in those exchanges.

>And before your stock reply of "what about him??", please know
>that I have made no secret of my disgust for him many times
>over.

That stock reply is stocked with good reason: you pretty much only call me out whenever there's a back and forth between he and I. That's the damned truth. For a guy who is so disgusted by him, it's odd that you only zero in on me in exchanges that are nearly always initiated by him.

Basically everything about your preoccupation with me in my interactions with people who, at a minimum, throw an equal amount of shade my way is completely dishonest.