The actual claim was "Scott Adams is kind of a nutbar, this kind of paranoia is right up his alley." I think you should be easily able to convince yourself of that with a little searching.

No one is debating the first claim. We are debating the second claim which was absurd and completely unambiguous

> 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.

Let's try this again, politely. I never said that so I'm not lying once or again. You're the one who's in the wrong here - you said Scott Adams's paranoid claims give credence to "censorship" arguments. They don't because they're the claims of a crazy person. When this was pointed out to you, instead of looking into it you were rude (citation needed!). Then you got hung up on a small discrepancy in someone else's supporting claim to 'Scott Addams is a nutbar' and started calling everyone liars and declaring yourself some arbiter of intellectual honesty. How do you get to that from just being wrong on the internet and someone pointing it out to you? Happens to everyone all the time, no big whoop.

> They don't because they're the claims of a crazy person

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 :)

No, that's a fact but even if you call it an opinion you share how can the nonsense he spouts possibly give credence to notions of twitter censorship? That makes no sense at all. Or is intellectually dishonest, if you prefer.

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 :)

There is a reason someone might say "What is your opinion on Scott Adams?" instead of "What is your facts about Scott Adams?" (hint: opinion != facts)

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!

I was miss-remembering, not lying, but still I think my overall claim holds. No one is or was going to hunt down Scott Adams because he's a Trump supporter.

There is evidence to suggest that being a trump supporter is bad for your health. Google "Trump Supporter Attacked"

There is evidence and admission of guilt that facebook censored right wing "news".

There seems to be evidence that something is going on at twitter. It could be technical in nature, but that is exacly what people said during the facebook stuff (its the algorithm not censorship)

So, no, your "miss-remembered" claim does not hold

Different person responded to you than who made the claim, FYI. You asked for a citation from coldpie and received it from pvg.