When there is a discussion between two people and a third person gives himself the right to intervene and flag the exchange of thoughts or ideas, as they have done with YOUR reply to ME, then it is proof of total and absolute censorship - and the arguments claiming it is not are just the typical leftist student sophistries that communists and dictators use to justify their actions.

In a previous discussion about flagging, I explained that censorship does not require that a message is totally deleted; all it requires is that the article be removed by at least one step from easy or obvious availablity for the eye to notice and read.

I gave the example a business person understands: If I own a large store, but do not want to be seen to be boycotting your products, I do not remove your products from my shelves. What I do is place them in the least noticed parts of the store (which of course also includes shelves ar floor level or at above head level). Also, for instance, if I place the product out of context, on shelves promoting non-related products only.

In other words, just as I can make the marketing of your product more effective by positioning, so can the converse be easily achieved.

I was told I do not know what I am talking about and flagging is NOT censorship. What they did not take into account is that I grew up in a country where the government used censorship in many ways and we learnt to look beyond the flimsy/emotional excuses given to us.