for what it's worth tho I typed "spam definition" into the google and I get this:
spam
spam/Submit
noun
irrelevant or inappropriate messages sent on the Internet to a large number of recipients.
doesn't seem like it's predicated on repeated action
::shrugs::
Right, so using the above definition: had he sent you a .gif of a unicorn instead of a bitcoin, that might be considered irrelevant or inappropriate because it has nothing to do with the content of the post. If he also sent the same image to a large number of other recipients (that would be the repeated action). Had he done those two things, that would definitely qualify his comment as spam.
You're changing the goal posts. Above you were saying the definition of spam is based on it being repeated action. Now you're trying to pivot back to whether his post was relevant and on topic.
I don't really regard a random Bitcoin gif as relevant to my post, but we can agree to disagree on that part, and have already beat that horse. What I'm saying here is that, no, it doesn't seem like the definition of spam has to be based on repetition as you claimed it did.
Kind of feel like you're wasting my time now. mute
The definition you chose was two-fold.
The part in bold and the part in italics.
The large number of recipients is the repetition. It means the same message goes out repeatedly, just to different users, people, or addresses.
It is part of what qualifies spam as spam. It is how spam filters are able to catch spam, by scanning mail for similarity.
Yeah, I don't have time for this any longer either. It's a simple word, with a simple definition that is not at all hard to comprehend.