There's a world of difference between telling someone they don't have to read something (choice), and telling them they can't read it (censorship).
Your logic is akin to Natalie Maines whining about "censorship", when all that happened to her was people chose not to buy her music.
“There’s a world of difference between telling someone they don’t have to read something (choice), and telling them they can’t read it (censorship).”
The surface of your post I deliberately ignored as irrelevant. After all, how does one know whether they like what someone posted lest they read it? I was sure your point was that I don’t need to bother posting on a thread with which I disagree. Since when has that been the standard? Isn’t this whole forum about disagreeing with eachother, which often means disagreeing with the artical quoted in the thread?
Also, the Natalie Maines analogy is unnecessary. I realize of course that you didn’t literally censor me, although your attitude was at least censorious (arguing, as I interpreted it, that I shouldn’t have posted what I posted instead of arguing the issue).