"Ron" > wrote in message
...
> 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.

Your inability to comprehend already well established and further confirmed.