I know it is not evidence. Which is why I said "not really". You are welcome to believe that there are no people in the world who disagree with her and are polite if you think that is a more likely explanation for the complete lack of polite criticism on channels she controls even though such polite criticism clearly does exist on channels she doesn't control. You are also welcome to believe that I posted a "hateful screed" and it was deleted, despite the obvious fact that she doesn't delete those, they are all still there to view right now, and she revels in them and uses them for publicity and sympathy.
I have tried to be polite, but you are being deliberately obtuse. Which part of "not really" is difficult to understand? I did not claim to have evidence, quite the contrary I told you clearly I do not have evidence. And I know you didn't say those things, but you would have to believe those things in order to explain the state of every communication channel she controls. Look up "implication" in the dictionary.
I am not trying to back up a claim for you. I do not care what you believe, you are not required to be rational. Believe whatever you like. But do try to at least be constructive if you wish to converse. Deliberately ignoring the words of the person you are responding to, and responding to the opposite of what they said is not productive.
You can start a blog if you want to make a serious accusation of censorship without backing it up. That sort of thing is usually discouraged in places where people try to discuss things intelligently.
Or I can share my personal experiences here on a forum for discussing our opinions. If I feel that I need your approval to speak in the future I'll be sure to ask.
You could simply show us what you wrote. More important than mere opinion on this forum is an actual contribution to the to the overall discussion. A claim without support is not a significant contribution.
Do you save a copy of every comment you write anywhere in case it is rejected by the moderator and then someone randomly insists you must be a liar? I'm not sure if that is common, but it hasn't been a habit of mine. And what exactly would that accomplish? Would you actually believe me that my post was not approved, or would you and the other troll insist that I am just making it all up? I don't have proof remember?
This entire thread of "prove the sky is blue" has not been a contribution to the discussion, your post included. So, why continue it? I simply pointed out that looking at the comments that were allowed through does not necessarily reflect on what comments were posted. This is incredibly obvious, and it is rather sad that "durrr prove it" is the level of hypocritical non-discourse here.
Anyone (yourself included) can look at how there is rational, polite criticism of her work on independent channels like twitter. And anyone (yourself included still) can look at how there is no such criticism on channels she controls. So painting the response to her work as being only trolling bullshit by pointing only at the channels that have been wiped of other responses is dishonest.
You could have said "I have no examples and didn't think to keep a copy of mine." Everyone would have realized you were basing your claim of censorship on circumstantial evidence and a lone anecdote. This whole subthread could have been avoided.
