>>81833266...Yes, anon, I'm aware that it wasn't advertised. My response of "That's entirely reasonable. What's the issue here?" (
>>81832592) and "I'm just not insane and think an advertised NTR stream is a bad thing." (
>>81833156) is in reference to the revised concept discussed by the vtuber (image in
>>81832339).
It is NOT in reference to the stream that already happened, that was not properly advertised.
Is that clearer for you? Do you understand the flow of idea and conversation now? I know you need some help with the basics sometimes.
