In article >, "Dutch" >
wrote:

> "Ron" > wrote
> > "Dutch" > wrote:
>
> >> >> > > -snip-
> >> >> > >
> >> >> > > The rest is such nonsense I can't bear to read it.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > The golden rule -- can we assume that you no longer wish me to read
> >> >> > your
> >> >> > remarks.
> >> >>
> >> >> That would be great.
> >> >
> >> > Good thing that we view moral codes differently.
> >>
> >> It's definitely good for me that I don't think like you.
> >
> > I know, it is good for you. Being one of those who accepts every piece
> > of information thrown their way with no thought or consideration is
> > exactly what makes you better than me. You rock, Dutch.
>
> I am reading, considering, and dismissing virtually everything you say as
> irrational claptrap, therefore that can't be true, Ron.
>
> > No please respond to the latest question, if it isn't too much trouble.
> >
> > When I advocate for the removal of a law (legalization) am I, or am I
> > not advocating for that action or behaviour?
>
> You may, but not necessarily. In the case of pot smoking you may be
> acknowledging that the status of illegal results in more net harm than
> having it legal. Of course you are then required to make the case, and many
> people, including myself, have done so.
>
> Now please do yourself a favour and go back to whatever *** people do well..

Your inability to respond to the question is noted.