For example, she mentions this paragraph: > She said that while she gets some help, Sci-Hub remains pretty much a one-woman show (it’s “mainly me,” she said) The Chronicle of Higher Education

And criticises it by saying: > So they lie to their readers that Sci-Hub run by a woman is some kind of not a real thing but a ‘show’ , and to support this, they seize upon a word ‘mainly’ that I have used to describe my work, as a proof that I am not doing this myself, but getting helped instead.

The use of show in this context is normal and typical language usage, but she instead tries to ascribe the literal meaning to the word 'show' and is offended by it. No native English speaker would interpret "one-woman show" as meaning "Sci-Hub run by a woman is some kind of not a real thing but a ‘show’ ".

So combine a thin skin due to numerous attack, a good command of English but no mastery of the subtleties of certain words and expressions and you have a recipe for her to seem overly susceptible.