Somebohdee will reply to this just because sum1 said to not to. That's not the best way to get peepz to do or not do what one wants them to do or not do especially with no cogent argument. Some out of sheer spite with or without a case of O D D. This user will stop asking when sufficiently answered. Tuff teeteez if yr so triggered by free-speech, sum1 asking a freekn question, voluntary transactions on a board for such, either way, that one (multiple aholez actually in the past week or two) has to resort to telling this user and others who try to answer or make some other ubiquitous comment here in these threads to stop posting is just asking them to continue. There's plenty this user wants people to do or not to do irl, but some things are better left unsaid, or else risk some sites coming out with a big deal out of it in opposition. Like if this user said/told people to stop with race mixing for ex., (random example out of muh insomniac rearend), this user guarantees a radical agitprop site to declare tomorrow national EFF a BLAK BOI DAY to pyss off yr WAYSISS parent/s/others or else be called waysiss yrself. Attack and defeat the "need", the "why", not the "how". There are policies out there on both sides this user has a row with over either the reasons/results behind a policy this user would support and disagreeing with a policy based on reasons/concerns this user also sympathizes with. Quite the interesting dichotomy, conundrum. Like instead of thretenin ppl to go vegn and taking away deir meetz by force, create a str trk t n g style replicator that solves wrld hungr at the push of a button out of thin air and less peepz will need to go out and look for such, when it can materialize out of thin air with no murdr. /rant tl dr: lrn2logik