It shouldn't take a paragraph to explain why eliminating rights on the basis of a group's legally defined structure on a piece of paper that deals with defining structure and has nothing to do with the rights of the group as a group of people, is a bad idea for everyone.

We had already discovered that dwer does not think any chartered group or organization has rights. Once we've established that, as I believe we already had at that point, what is there left to say but "you might not like what you get if you do"?

All I said to you was to restate what had already been said.

Why are we talking about talking?