Voit lisätä twiitteihisi sijainnin, esimerkiksi kaupungin tai tarkemman paikan, verkosta ja kolmannen osapuolen sovellusten kautta. Halutessasi voit poistaa twiittisi sijaintihistorian myöhemmin. Lue lisää
There is always something strange in noting a piece of evidence in a footnote only to specifically discount it as being irrelevant. It's like leaving a personal note for Reviewer 2: yes, I know about that one too - but we both know it's nonsense.
This tweet brought to you by a reference to the armor of Gauls in the employ of the Seleucids by the 2nd cent (CE) sophist Lucian, whose testimony is completely worthless... But you know if it wasn't in that footnote, it'd have been in Reviewer 2's notes, so there it is.
Honestly, this is true in a lot of political debates for me. I don't mind you coming to a different conclusion than me, really. I just want to have some confidence that you *actually disagree*, instead of merely being pig-ignorant.
When someone hates on Lucian and the Galatian front-rankers in their bronze cuirasses at the Battle of Elephantspic.twitter.com/BOkJYMoygs
Some serious reviewer-2-self-identification-energy going on here.
Twitter saattaa olla ruuhkautunut tai ongelma on muuten hetkellinen. Yritä uudelleen tai käy Twitterin tilasivulla saadaksesi lisätietoja.
