[clouddrover]

> Unless you think VPNs don't exist in China

Your condescension is tedious in the extreme.

> Did you read these links yourself?

Did you? Read some more:

https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2014/06/01/317397569/...

> If you find my opinions/suspicions/admonitions irrelevant

Show me some data to back your assertions. If you cannot then your opinions/suspicions/admonitions and anecdotes are irrelevant.

> I'm good as long as it's been communicated to you

Nothing has been communicated but your lazy outlook. I suspect you lack seriousness.

[ylmm]

That NPR link doesn't contradict anything I said. Tedious sure, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't qualify the words you use. But good to know that you read what I wrote! How you choose to process it is up to you.

[clouddrover]

There's nothing to process. Show me data to back your claims. If you cannot then your claims are irrelevant.

[ylmm]

Replying to the thing below: I claimed that your insinuation that no one in China knows about June 4 because of censorship is false. The small-sample survey cited by the Vox and NPR links that you sent support my claim.

[clouddrover]

> I claimed that your insinuation that no one in China knows about June 4

I insinuated no such thing. Re-read what I have written. Do it carefully this time.

As I suspected, you lack seriousness.

[ylmm]

You should re-read what you've written. No qualifications for generalizing statements, so it sounds like you're insinuating what I'm saying you're insinuating.

[clouddrover]

Good grief this is pointless. Your claims are profoundly dishonest. Find some better honesty.