If you’re unable to explain something as basic as reading (and you clearly didn’t bother practicing it either), I’m not sure if explanations are really the right thing for you, but I guess I’ll try anyway: Even if those were her only motives (which I’d already have to stretch pretty far to accept), that would not refute the comment you replied to, nor would it support any other inferences one might make from your opposition. Thus, I questioned what meaning you had actually intended to contribute to the conversation, since I assumed that you were trying to communicate some coherent point and not just be a waste of space and energy. If this attempt at insulting me was all you could muster in response though, I don’t have high hopes of every hearing that point, and I should probably rethink that assumption.

Yes, murder in all cases. Not like I fully analyzed my word choice at the time, but I think I did have some intent behind calling it that so I’ll see if I piece that back together: I think my overall stance was pretty well established at that point, so not risking confusion there. For “journalist-killing” vs “-murdering”, my guess is that the former just rolled off the [mental] tongue better, and I would’ve been more concerned about ambiguous attribution, for which both are basically equal, than morality, so just went with that. I believe “unaliving” supported the more casual off-tone of that question (“doing a little … on the side”) as part of my facetious approach towards the other comment, using that discongruity with the subject matter to emphasize the absurdity I was alleging in the other comment. The frog might be completely unrecognizable at this point though, so YMMV, but yeah, the intent of that word choice wasn’t to obscure the nature of that [potential] violence or avoid censorship or other automated tools, I do stand behind considering it kidnapping and murder.

“They’re going to change her from alive to not alive.”