Or someone that opened the profile of the person sending the tweets (no search needed) who opened a "private window" to see it without revealing their personal info. Yes, it takes "forethought" but took me about 2 seconds to do (two clicks, once you are looking at an "offending" tweet).

Yes, and if US troops landed and shot those Russians, it would be Ukranian forces attacking rebels, not Americans shooting Russians, regardless of who pulls the trigger and who dies.

The "cliche" is the person that asserts anything they don't like is "force" and everything else is justified after, merely "counter-force" and not an initiation of force in response to speech.

So if force (or the initiation thereof) is wrong to the Libertarians, and speech is force, then all libertarians must be against "free speech", Right?

And yes, you are the first person I've seen who asserted that speech is force.

You are confusing reality with political reality.

Not in the minds of those ordering the fighting. When a Soviet killed an American in Vietnam, the NVA did it. The Soviets weren't shooting at us, the NVA/VC was shooting at the South Vietnamese. It just happened that the NVA shooting was Soviet, and the South Vietnamese army member killed was American.

Yes, Russia, under the USSR, bred out the Ukrainians. Crimea is a little different because it's often not been Ukrainian. But there were Russian palaces on the Crimean peninsula, so obviously some claims. The people I know from the Ukraine hare the Russians. The only Ukrainians that don't hate the Russians are Russians.

No, it wouldn't.

Yeah, it had nothing to do with the massive miss management for years. They spent more time trying to legislate out foreign makers, rather than trying to make cars people wanted. But that has nothing to do with their decline.

Tautology U has taught you well. Prove women don't participate for reasons other than bias.

If the reason women don't participate is because women are more likely to have their edits reverted when people see they are done by a feminine name, then the choosing to not participate is based in bias. Asserting your preferred answer doesn't change reality, no matter how much you want it to.

Chickipedia?

You don't need the remote if you have physical access.

Yup, and streakers at football games are almost always guys.

Sounds like someone doesn't know how Twitter works. Let's say someone else follows her. They see the @her tweets. So they see it, and make the screen capture. But, they don't want to get involved in the mess, so they save the search, log out, and paste in the URL, showing the tweets in that search, without showing the person who captured it or how they searched for it.

Yes, it does make it unlikely that the person threatened was the one to capture the tweets (unless it was a setup), but not an unreasonable or unlikely chain of events.

No. That's not a contradiction. Trust is binary. But trust isn't a single act. It's a binary between "yes" or "no" but not for all options. If your friend has been playing the "pull the chair" joke, you could trust your chair to hold you, but not trust it to be there. You still have trust all the time, just not in everything all the time. I trust that my next breath will contain oxygen. That is permanent, unless I'm in a fire or otherwise in trouble. But that doesn't mean that I have to trust everything all the time. Just that not trusting anything at any point in time would result in paralysis, and is mostly impossible. 10 minutes of analysis of the air before each breath isn't sustainable.

What force did she use? I don't understand.