You are the one who said my conclusion about you was inaccurate. You neither defended your position nor added to the discussion.
My analogy was to assist you to understand my post. Clearly it was accurate and touched a nerve.
As far as the discussion goes, it has been pointed to you that a person can contract away their rights (an earlier contention I made which you did not address, probably because you didn’t understand it).
It is you that is dragging this thread down in your abject ignorance about the law and the USC.
Prove it. Go back and cut and paste my words. Note that a sentence with a question mark at the end is not a statement.
“You neither defended your position nor added to the discussion.”
You made no attack on my position for me to defend. You attacked me.
And I don't know what position you are writing about, so again, go back and cut and paste the position you think I took.
“My analogy was to assist you to understand my post.”
Your “analogy” added nothing.
“As far as the discussion goes, it has been pointed to you that a person can contract away their rights (an earlier contention I made which you did not address, probably because you didn’t understand it).”
I know that. The post I originally responded to raised property rights as the issue, not contract rights. Understand that property rights, not contract rights, were under discussion.
“It is you that is dragging this thread down in your abject ignorance about the law and the USC.”
Lack of comprehension on your part does not constitute ignorance on my part. (In terms that might be more understandable by you: Just because you don't understand doesn't mean that I am the one who is ignorant.)