> He thought Hillary Clinton was going to kill him if he said he was planning to vote against her
You are lying (again). How is this constructive? Intellectual dishonesty swings both ways. You would call me out if the tables were turned. You are better than this.
That is your opinion. Others disagree. For the record: I agree with you. But these are our OPINIONS. Others see a successful artist, pundit, investor, and multimillionaire.
> When this was pointed out to you, instead of looking into it you were rude (citation needed!).
I wanted to know where the Fact of the statement came from. Specifically, the fact that OP claimed Hillary Clinton was going to kill him.
> declaring yourself some arbiter of intellectual honesty
I never once did this. I did call you out for being dishonest and if that makes me an arbiter of intellectual honesty then so be it.
And then you started name calling which was really classy :)
The only explanation I can think of is you didn't know who Scott Adams was or didn't notice the verbiage came from him and then decided to be an ass about it. And I'm sorry, calling people liars and [citation needed] is so far off the classy path that you should not be surprised others follow you into the weeds. You were wrong then rude then insulting :)
The notion of censorship exists because it happens. Facebook admitted doing it. But I suppose this is another fact you will confuse with an opinion.
And I truly apologize if my "[citation needed]" offended your delicate sensibilities. I thought I was dealing with an adult but your emotional outbursts and insistence that opinions are facts prove you still have a ways to go. A long ways. Good luck!