1. According to you because you ignore what you don't like. And stop lying, it's an explanation of a specific point IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE FULL LAW. 2. Please stop regurgitating that BS. To buy into that, one has to take your revisionist screed as logical discourse, which any high school teacher will tell you it's not because your supposition and conjecture are NOT fact. Guess work is not a logical conclusion, as you've done for 5 and more posts, including #111. Choice, my friend. No one is forcing you or anyone else to do anything. Deal with it.
So basically you claim you've put forth an argument, and I claim nothing you wrote constituted an argument concerning your claim. I guess we are at an impasse then. I don't think there's anyway to get passed that if one person claims something logically follows, and the other person claims it doesn't, and neither side is getting into specific details.
My good man, you can't LIE in a print recorded medium. The chronology of the posts clearly shows that I posted FACTS and LINKS relating to the ACTUAL LAW AND IT'S LANGUAGE. I used such to deconstruct your assertions. I never "claimed" anything....that is solely your department, as you continuously spin tales of "what if" and "could be" to bolster your revisionist spin as to what actually exists. To date, you've offered nothing but your opinion, supposition and conjecture as if they are on par with the FACTS and the logic derived from said facts. There is no "guess" work about our exchanges, as you clearly have no intention of acknowledging anything that does not fit into your version of reality. Any rational, objective reader can see that. The first 3 words of your second paragraph says it all. You just can't stand the fact that we live in a world of choice regarding certain laws, and others don't share your viewpoint. So be it. Entertaining your blinders wearing podium has gone on long enough. So unless you've got something new other than this lame cop out of yours (referenced fact links would be nice), I'll leave you to have the last predictable word.
Relating to, but not actually showing. You don't seem to be able to understand what your link actually means. It was only one individual's opinion / assessment of what the law means, and not a complete explanation, at that. I am even going to accuse that individual of being deceitful (by omitting the truth), since they only explained part of what that law would do. It's not merely what "could be"; it is what will very likely be, if we take an honest reasonable assessment of the facts. Something I've repeatedly explained over and over again to you in this thread, but which you seem to continuously ignore. You are demanding a "proof" that is not reasonable.
What will "very likely be" and where's your proof it will "very likely be" ? I know, just another inconvenient question to ignore
Sure, when are you going to use some ? Here's the other question you ignored : "What will "very likely be" ??
