Unless you think VPNs don't exist in China, then of course your use of the word "censored" needs to be qualified.

Did you read these links yourself? One of the your links only mentions that it's not taught in school, others are also based on anecdotal evidence (some of which express that it's sometimes taught in schools and that some people know but don't care). The one statistic that I found in your articles asked about the tank man and not the event itself, and even then their number was 15/100, which is low but not zero.

I don't disagree with what's expressed in these links. I disagree with your characterization of people in China having zero access to this information. If you find my opinions/suspicions/admonitions irrelevant, that's a personal issue. I'm good as long as it's been communicated to you (apparently it has).

> 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.

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.

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

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.

> 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.

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.

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