It's not cheating if the cuck is jerking off in the corner while the bull rails her.
If Nick did have any sort of input for the 2nd reply, this is the development of Nick's victim narrative/ divorce exit strategy of:
I think people are just reading way too much into it. The first post was incredibly stupid and the second was an stupider attempt on fixing it. It would be funny if Nick was that much vain to add his part but it does read like she is scrambling to fix her mistake - without realizing she could just delete the first response - and sucking her nose sugar daddy in the meantime.
I also wonder if he avoids rewatching his streams to prevent narcissistic injury, relying on his charitable memory (or lack thereof) of events.
There's plenty of video that would show he is an open cuck.
It's even worse than that. His cope has gone from, "I said 'probably'" to arguing that he truly believes what he said, and now that Montagraph has to prove he's not a pedophile, not that what he said was an opinion that couldn't possibly be defamation.
His bullshit is trying to skirt "knowledge of the falsity" ("I know it's not false" while refusing to prove it is not good enough) or reckless disregard for the truth ("I have not seen anything to disprove what I've seen"). I think if you were to try to explain Nick's defenses for why he defamed Montagraph to law professors or practicing attorneys, they would feel legally entitled to shoot you in the fucking head. Because a so-called legal expert should be shot in the head for legal statements that are that fucking stupid.
The indication of a true retard. When you accuse somebody of something, it's not suddenly on the other person to prove they are not that thing. The burden is on you to prove they are what you say they are. In fact, that's how COURT CASES work. Doesn't this fake pretend lawyer know that?
My photo editing skills are woefully limited but I thought this was funny.
Lmao no. He's just so buck-broken he is living a life of seethe.
To be pedantic for one moment, in a defamation case the plaintiff is making a claim regarding what the defendant said. The defendant is not necessarily required to prove anything about what they said, but the plaintiff is required to show, on balance of evidence, that their claim about what the defendant said is true.
Look, I just wanna take my vacation there, but some idiot had to go and hire Pee Wee Herman to be the pilot and we never made it
His last stream he talked about having to attend some kind of outpatient addiction group. His only takeaway was, "Phew! Glad I don't have a problem like those REAL addicts. It's so easy, why don't they just not use? haha."
It's a good thing Nick didn't say this literally on a recorded stream as a result of being butthurt at seeing a stupid meme made at his expense, and then repeatedly on later streams (including the appealstream).
i was tempted by this reasoning for a bit as well. i wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt and assume given his muted and limited appearances online that what's going on behind the scenes is reflection and self-improvement.
