Do I know you? No. So you’re attacking me... why?
Look, I get that the distinction is federal law. That wasn’t what I was pointing out. My point was that the language on that page could (and should) be clearer. It was NOT my intent to suggest that the mods are wrong or that anyone should violate the TOS.
Narrow..so very narrow.
How is agreeing with
@Topwater Elvis 's comment that there is "Zero hypocrisy unless somebody's entire existence is based upon arguing with anyone over levels of meaningless nothingness." an attack???
Might it perhaps be that the glass slipper fits?
Moreover, I fail to see what my knowing you or not has to do with
my agreement with Elvis.
However, while I haven't had the dubious pleasure of "knowing you" nor do I want to,
I have read you meaningless arguments in the outside and know you to be quite argumentative about silly and usually irrelevant topics.
Take the stupid question asked by the OP and the even stupider assertion that
it is hypocrisy of the ECF rules to permit discussion of a LEGAL subject (which is under threat of being made illegal) but not permit the discussion of an ILLEGAL subject for many reasons, the main one being the posible association of one legal subject with an illegal one.
While nicotine is a chemical considered to be a drug it is legal.
It would be hypocrisy to permit discussion of nicotine containing cigarettes
but prohibit the discussion of ecig vaping.
But in your attempt to turn a stupid question asked by an obvious *** head into an argument over "meaningless nothingness" you compare apples to oranges
and make your intent evident.