placeholder

First off, even by musk's new definition of doxxing, the suspended journalists did not dox him. He lied. When they confronted him about this during an audio conference, he fled. Why are you repeating his lies? He also lied about relationship of the location ofhis private plane to the alleged stalking. And I write because so far musk h no police report about the incident has been filed. Geolocation evidence from the video of the event proves that the car was nowhere in the vicinity of Musk's jet.

Common sense = less free speech. More hypocrisy from Musk and his supporters.

Not even Kushner is dim enough to take on that job. Musk will have to find another scapegoat.

More fanboyism, How much of that has come from twitter? That would be a negative quantity, no?

Treating a prediction like a settled fact in support of an argument is nonsense.

And given Musk's record, we can all be confident that's a promise he will keep.

Always impressive to cite the future as evidence. That is, if you're a time traveler.

Care to back that assertion up with facts? I won't hold my breath.

For Elon fanboys, he can do no wrong. But it's definitely a brilliant idea for the owner of the company to troll members. How could anyone think that would hurt the business?

Actually, the Keystone Pipeline has been a bit too open lately Keystone Has Leaked More Oil Than Any Other Pipeline in US Since 2010 The major conduit runs from Canada into the US Midwest Pipeline was shuttered last week after crude leaked in Kansas https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-12-12/tc-energy-keystone-has-leaked-more-oil-than-any-other-pipeline-in-us-since-2010?leadSource=uverify wall

They should bring large wooden instruments. And matches.

What made right wingers think that the First Amendment applied to Twitter? Few are questioning Musk's right to censor; it's his hypocrisy that's the issue.

It's clear that you consider that great nonsense poem, The Hunting of the Snark, as your reference for rules of evidence: "Just the place for a Snark!" the Bellman cried, As he landed his crew with care; Supporting each man on the top of the tide By a finger entwined in his hair. "Just the place for a Snark! I have said it twice: That alone should encourage the crew. Just the place for a Snark! I have said it thrice: What I tell you three times is true." https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43909/the-hunting-of-the-snark

You still don't get it. Assertions aren't enough.

Apparently, your idea of evidence is mere assertions.

False. Once again, here's the link: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/10/poor-rich-tories-brexit-austerity-cameron-osborne-sunak

This is just one more attempt by you to make things personal. To focus on the person you disagree with rather than the issue of disagreement. It's fundamentally dishonest.. I have given you a link to someone making the case. There's no necessary reason for me to rehash it.

So, if you were to question, say, my assertions about atomic structure, and in reply, I were to send you here, https://www.atomicarchive.com/science/physics/atomic-isotopes.html that would make my claims false? You don't seem to have a clue about what evidence consists of. It is to laugh.

Who gave you the authority to assign homework? You asked a question and the answer is a link away.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/nov/10/poor-rich-tories-brexit-austerity-cameron-osborne-sunak

It only inflicts them on its own people.

No matter how irrelevant. Yours is just another transparent attempt to distract from issues and make it personal instead.

Good point. Now if there were a major political party that mostly subscribed to the editorial stances of the Telegraph, your observation wouldn't make much sense. But the governance of the UK could never sink that low, could it? Just a rhetorical question. Of course it couldn't.

I don't know how they voted in the past but it's obvious why they oppose it now: It's coming from Russia, the same country that used the bizarre and blatantly false excuse of fighting Nazism to justify its invasion of Ukraine. Anyway, you're the one who noted that "Obviously it is a problem. That's why few days ago was a discussion about that in UN GA. What was the result of the voting of combating glorification of Nazism?" So, what was the result? Among other things, a passage that condemned Russia for falsely claiming its invasion of Ukraine was based on the false premise of fighting Nazism.