> That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagi

> That commenter above that you refer to is quite simply incorrect. I suspect he's not read any of her work and is speaking only from artefacts of his own imagination. If that's me, correct. Her line of reasoning is ... something about "starting a global conversation"? Being in the minority doesn't mean you have a point. Being censored doesn't mean that you have a point. Not being censored but arguing that you are censored doesn't mean you are censored or that you have a point. Arguing that not-being-censored is not evidence of being censored ("witch logic") doesn't mean you are censored or have a point. She could have used the space to make a point, so that readers wouldn't need to resort to imagining artefacts, but instead she told her audience that she's being held back from telling her audience stuff.