Day 1
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Why isn't it? It's an item that is produced, transported and sold. No different from cigarettes, alcohol, apples or scooters.
Very different from apples, and it strikes me as a bit funny that I need to point it out. For one, even if it is allowed in your country, you should never drive when under influence. You can have as much apples on your scooter as you like, but going stoned into traffic might cause some problems.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Pure conjecture, you have no evidence.
Pure semantic defense from someone who has no real arguments :) Twice!
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You claimed I said there was a harder version of the plant, when I called that a straw-man you quoted me saying there was a harder version of the drug. If you can't tell the difference between the two then you probably shouldn't be involved in this thread.
So you learned to retort as a child, but not thinking. You're one of those religious ones? :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The place with the rampant heroin problems?
Sorry, but no problems with heroine here. Sometimes we get the occasional Englishman trying out magic mushrooms and then jumping naked from a hotel, sometimes someone gets sick from partying too hard on XTC, but that's about it. No opioid-crisis either.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Very different from apples
I see you cherry picked your examples. It's certainly no different from alcohol or cigarettes. Both are commodities that are strictly controlled, require licenses etc to manufacture or sell. Legalised cannabis is no different.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Pure semantic defense from someone who has no real arguments
So you're allowed to state things you think are true are fact, without evidence, and I can't call you out on it? Seems to me you're just trying to wriggle out of defending what you say.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So you learned to retort as a child, but not thinking.
That makes no sense. No admission that your argument was indeed a straw-man one. Figures.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Sorry, but no problems with heroine here
Ok.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Very different from apples
I see you cherry picked your examples. It's certainly no different from alcohol or cigarettes. Both are commodities that are strictly controlled, require licenses etc to manufacture or sell. Legalised cannabis is no different.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Pure semantic defense from someone who has no real arguments
So you're allowed to state things you think are true are fact, without evidence, and I can't call you out on it? Seems to me you're just trying to wriggle out of defending what you say.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
So you learned to retort as a child, but not thinking.
That makes no sense. No admission that your argument was indeed a straw-man one. Figures.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Sorry, but no problems with heroine here
Ok.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I see you cherry picked your examples.
No, I didn't; I used your examples (!) to explain how your conclusion that it is just another commodity is a wrong one.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's certainly no different from alcohol or cigarettes. Both are commodities that are strictly controlled, require licenses etc to manufacture or sell. Legalised cannabis is no different.
You won't get arrested for driving under influence of tobacco.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
So you're allowed to state things you think are true are fact, without evidence, and I can't call you out on it?
Sure you can :D Come with a decent argument and you may even convince me to change my mind.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Seems to me you're just trying to wriggle out of defending what you say.
Coming from the one who tried word-games in the previous post.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
That makes no sense. No admission that your argument was indeed a straw-man one. Figures.
It wasn't, so no admission.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I see you cherry picked your examples.
No, I didn't; I used your examples (!) to explain how your conclusion that it is just another commodity is a wrong one.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
It's certainly no different from alcohol or cigarettes. Both are commodities that are strictly controlled, require licenses etc to manufacture or sell. Legalised cannabis is no different.
You won't get arrested for driving under influence of tobacco.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
So you're allowed to state things you think are true are fact, without evidence, and I can't call you out on it?
Sure you can :D Come with a decent argument and you may even convince me to change my mind.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Seems to me you're just trying to wriggle out of defending what you say.
Coming from the one who tried word-games in the previous post.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
That makes no sense. No admission that your argument was indeed a straw-man one. Figures.
It wasn't, so no admission.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
your conclusion that it is just another commodity is a wrong one.
In terms of selling (which is what we were discussing) how is it different to tobacco?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You won't get arrested for driving under influence of tobacco.
Irrelevant, we were discussing the supply and sale of it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Come with a decent argument and you may even convince me to change my mind.
There is no argument against conjecture as it isn't a valid argument in the first place; all I was doing was pointing that out to you.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Coming from the one who tried word-games in the previous post.
You seem very keen to drag the argument off-topic. Almost all of your replies are an attempt to drift away from the original discussion points.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It wasn't
It was. I said there were stronger versions of the drug, and by that I was referring to the synthetic versions of cannabis such as spice and so on. You claimed I said there were stronger versions of the plant. There are stronger versions of the drug. There are stronger versions of the plant. Do you see how those are not the same thing? Or are you so belligerent that you'll simply never admit you are wrong despite it being as clear as the nose on your face?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
your conclusion that it is just another commodity is a wrong one.
In terms of selling (which is what we were discussing) how is it different to tobacco?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You won't get arrested for driving under influence of tobacco.
Irrelevant, we were discussing the supply and sale of it.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Come with a decent argument and you may even convince me to change my mind.
There is no argument against conjecture as it isn't a valid argument in the first place; all I was doing was pointing that out to you.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Coming from the one who tried word-games in the previous post.
You seem very keen to drag the argument off-topic. Almost all of your replies are an attempt to drift away from the original discussion points.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It wasn't
It was. I said there were stronger versions of the drug, and by that I was referring to the synthetic versions of cannabis such as spice and so on. You claimed I said there were stronger versions of the plant. There are stronger versions of the drug. There are stronger versions of the plant. Do you see how those are not the same thing? Or are you so belligerent that you'll simply never admit you are wrong despite it being as clear as the nose on your face?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
In terms of selling (which is what we were discussing) how is it different to tobacco?
You may be selling tobacco, even if you have been to jail. Licensing is somewhat stricter. Depending on local policies, one might also need to register as a user, before being able to buy. Identification for tabac is not required if you're 50, but it is if you want to buy weed.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Irrelevant, we were discussing the supply and sale of it.
I'm thinking that your drivel here is irrelevant; we were talking about how it differs as a commodity from tobacco. There's even different rules for transportation - no one ever complained that I bring tobacco aboard an airplane. Don't think they'd be very happy if you try to get that high :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Almost all of your replies are an attempt to drift away from the original discussion points.
All of yours seem a childish attempt to defend some weird statement that was proven invalid a few posts ago :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I was referring to the synthetic versions of cannabis
Yes, bring in synthetic meat into a meat-discussion. Those designer-drugs are not available at a normal coffeeshop, and are not the topic. It also is not "the same drug".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
In terms of selling (which is what we were discussing) how is it different to tobacco?
You may be selling tobacco, even if you have been to jail. Licensing is somewhat stricter. Depending on local policies, one might also need to register as a user, before being able to buy. Identification for tabac is not required if you're 50, but it is if you want to buy weed.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Irrelevant, we were discussing the supply and sale of it.
I'm thinking that your drivel here is irrelevant; we were talking about how it differs as a commodity from tobacco. There's even different rules for transportation - no one ever complained that I bring tobacco aboard an airplane. Don't think they'd be very happy if you try to get that high :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Almost all of your replies are an attempt to drift away from the original discussion points.
All of yours seem a childish attempt to defend some weird statement that was proven invalid a few posts ago :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
I was referring to the synthetic versions of cannabis
Yes, bring in synthetic meat into a meat-discussion. Those designer-drugs are not available at a normal coffeeshop, and are not the topic. It also is not "the same drug".
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You may be selling tobacco, even if you have been to jail. Licensing is somewhat stricter. Depending on local policies, one might also need to register as a user, before being able to buy. Identification for tabac is not required if you're 50, but it is if you want to buy weed.
So? We were discussing who is more likely to start selling cannabis and I said it is more likely to be the people who already peddle similar commodities as they have the infrastructure, and it's no different from the manufacture and sale of other restricted commodities. Your arguments against that are all irrelevant facts about if you can drive under the influence, if you need ID to buy and so on. None of that affects the drug as a commodity.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
All of yours seem a childish attempt to defend some weird statement that was proven invalid a few posts ago
The only statements you have proven invalid are straw-man statements that you and you alone made.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Those designer-drugs are not available at a normal coffeeshop, and are not the topic.
So? Of what relevance is that to the fact that I never said "plant"; that was your word, not mine. At least you now seem to admit that there are indeed different variations of the drug, some more dangerous than others. Even though you've fallen short of flat out admitting you were wrong, I'll still take it.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You may be selling tobacco, even if you have been to jail. Licensing is somewhat stricter. Depending on local policies, one might also need to register as a user, before being able to buy. Identification for tabac is not required if you're 50, but it is if you want to buy weed.
So? We were discussing who is more likely to start selling cannabis and I said it is more likely to be the people who already peddle similar commodities as they have the infrastructure, and it's no different from the manufacture and sale of other restricted commodities. Your arguments against that are all irrelevant facts about if you can drive under the influence, if you need ID to buy and so on. None of that affects the drug as a commodity.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
All of yours seem a childish attempt to defend some weird statement that was proven invalid a few posts ago
The only statements you have proven invalid are straw-man statements that you and you alone made.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Those designer-drugs are not available at a normal coffeeshop, and are not the topic.
So? Of what relevance is that to the fact that I never said "plant"; that was your word, not mine. At least you now seem to admit that there are indeed different variations of the drug, some more dangerous than others. Even though you've fallen short of flat out admitting you were wrong, I'll still take it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
So? We were discussing who is more likely to start selling cannabis and I said it is more likely to be the people who already peddle similar commodities as they have the infrastructure, and it's no different from the manufacture and sale of other restricted commodities.
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes. Most suppliers will not offer "weed" as part of their stock to order for supermarkets (who sell smokes and booze).
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The only statements you have proven invalid are straw-man statements that you and you alone made.
You have the right to that opinion :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of what relevance is that to the fact that I never said "plant"; that was your word, not mine. At least you now seem to admit that there are indeed different variations of the drug
It is not the same drug, even if you want it to be that bad :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
Just out of interest: 1. Has the "street price" of pot dropped, now that it is legal? 2. What will the (illegal) pot dealers now do for a living? Inquiring minds wish to know...
Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four. If that is granted, all else follows. -- 6079 Smith W.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
Has the "street price" of pot dropped, now that it is legal?
Interesting question. I heard (i did not go buy any myself) that the pot sold at SQDC is half of what is asked on black market. In the news, this morning, they talked about lines being so long (up to 4 hours wait) that some buyers turned to the black market.
Daniel Pfeffer wrote:
What will the (illegal) pot dealers now do for a living?
They will probably upgrade to cocaine and other still illegal drugs.
-
Zombie Apocalypse.
Everyone is born right handed. Only the strongest overcome it. Fight for left-handed rights and hand equality.
011111100010 wrote:
Zombie Apocalypse.
Pot-smoking zombies :laugh:
-
Has Canadian GDP gone down yet from all those people saying 'fuck it' and lying in bed? :)
That will be followed closely. Stay tuned!
-
Florida made the liquid forms legal just over a year ago. My retired brother-in-law decided that it might be just the thing to help with relief from arthritis. I didn't care. It wouldn't affect me, right? Wrong! Here are my observations over the last year. After getting his state pot license and paying a 'doctor' $120 for a 15 minute diagnosis, it's off to the dispensary where he spends around $60 a week for a couple of vape tanks and drops. Even before he was getting high every day he would call frequently...usually a couple of times a week. Nowadays it's an expected everyday event...much rambling and self-aggrandizing on his part, and lately always complaining about money. Last week, unbeknownst to me, he asked my wife to borrow money and she obliged. When she told me about it later, I suggested that he should get off the pot and get a job instead of borrowing. She had already raised the issue with his wife who's response was 'Oh no, he really needs it...he's impossible to live with when he doesn't have it'. :wtf: So, he's now chemically dependent? :confused: Also, I'm sure most employers still mandate drug tests he couldn't get a job anyway. Also, I've recently learned that he has been seeing a shrink, apparently having PTSD over the death of his 87 y/o mother....while the rest of us have moved on, he's still stuck on it...probably because he is retired, bored, and stoned. I wonder how long it will be before he needs more money. :mad:
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
Your bother-in-law is a carpetbagger. He is lazy, and pot legalization will change nothing to that. It is just an excuse. Don't generalize based on a bad example.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
So? We were discussing who is more likely to start selling cannabis and I said it is more likely to be the people who already peddle similar commodities as they have the infrastructure, and it's no different from the manufacture and sale of other restricted commodities.
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes. Most suppliers will not offer "weed" as part of their stock to order for supermarkets (who sell smokes and booze).
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
The only statements you have proven invalid are straw-man statements that you and you alone made.
You have the right to that opinion :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of what relevance is that to the fact that I never said "plant"; that was your word, not mine. At least you now seem to admit that there are indeed different variations of the drug
It is not the same drug, even if you want it to be that bad :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes.
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not the same drug
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic. We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one. If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You will need a somewhat different network than when selling booze or smokes.
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It is not the same drug
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic. We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one. If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
You never "dealt with government for a license"? And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic.
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed. It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
I'm not; that's just your suggestion.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
For sure, but you'll already have the experience in building those networks, in logistics, dealing with governments for licenses etc.
You never "dealt with government for a license"? And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Again you're trying to drag things off-topic.
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed. It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
We were discussing how your argument was clearly a straw-man one
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics :)
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
If your arguments are sound why are you trying so hard to abandon them?
I'm not; that's just your suggestion.
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You never "dealt with government for a license"?
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
Not a delivery network, not a network of legal vendors.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed.
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
Synthetic cannabis is already a controlled substance in Canada; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You never "dealt with government for a license"?
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
And an previously illegal dealer would alreay have a network, no need to build it.
Not a delivery network, not a network of legal vendors.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
No, just pointing out that "synthetic weed" is not weed.
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
It will also not be covered by weed-legislation.
Synthetic cannabis is already a controlled substance in Canada; Controlled Drugs and Substances Act[^]
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Yes, you were hiding behind semantics
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Dunno how it relates to the topic, but nice to quote you on the fact that it is not "just a commodity" :cool:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
More proof of your ignorance on the subject :D THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals. That's why the coffeeshops aren't allowed to sell synthetic drugs - it is not the same stuff, and hence, different rules apply.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Not to sell a legally restricted commodity, no. What does that have to do with anything?
Dunno how it relates to the topic, but nice to quote you on the fact that it is not "just a commodity" :cool:
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Of course it is. Chemicals are chemicals, it doesn't matter if they are obtained from a plant or a test-tube.
More proof of your ignorance on the subject :D THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals. That's why the coffeeshops aren't allowed to sell synthetic drugs - it is not the same stuff, and hence, different rules apply.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
No, you made a straw-man argument and I was explaining why it was a straw-man argument. You still refuse to admit it.
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong :thumbsup:
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals.
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
THC is only obtained from the plant; synthetic weed are "THC-like" chemicals.
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
You'd have to point that out between all your nonsense that I already proven wrong
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
No, it's not; it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
I'm not declaring "I won"; there is nothing to win - just pointing out that most of what you claimed is not true and based on ignorance. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
Where did I mention THC? Another straw-man argument.
No, it's not; it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
You know that repeatedly saying something doesn't make it true, right? If you have to declare that you've won, you probably haven't; Danth’s Law.
I'm not declaring "I won"; there is nothing to win - just pointing out that most of what you claimed is not true and based on ignorance. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
I see, you are telling me what my argument is? And you don't think that's a straw-man argument? :laugh: How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
-
Your bother-in-law is a carpetbagger. He is lazy, and pot legalization will change nothing to that. It is just an excuse. Don't generalize based on a bad example.
Very Large Brain wrote:
Your bother-in-law is a carpetbagger. He is lazy
Quite true! What I did not disclose is that he retired at the ripe old age of 52...actually feigned an injury and accepted a settlement. :| My point was that his financial situation has gotten worse since he now spends almost $300 a month for pot because he 'needs' it.
"Go forth into the source" - Neal Morse
-
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
it is the "chemical" in the plant that you were referring to.
I see, you are telling me what my argument is? And you don't think that's a straw-man argument? :laugh: How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
Already done that, none of your arguments are left. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
-
F-ES Sitecore wrote:
How about you argue against what I actually say, not the words you've put into my mouth.
Already done that, none of your arguments are left. :)
Bastard Programmer from Hell :suss: If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^] "If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
Eddy Vluggen wrote:
Already done that,
No, the only things you have argued against the whole thread have been things of your own creation.