On Jul 2, 3:23 am, "Aidy"  wrote:
> "M_P"  wrote in message
> news:f15925b4-8132-4895-b842-387cd7649d52@s9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

> > The link I clicked said they're the same, as I quoted ... and thus
> > supports my statement.
>
> It said that dependency was to be addicted, the other link demonstrated that
> addiction does not require dependency (or at least dependence was not
> mentioned as a prerequisite).  My original point (agian).
>
> "> [You] You can't be addicted without being dependent
>
> [Me] Maybe you should consult your dictionary."
>
> If you can't understand what "the same" means then maybe you should go back
> to high school?

So if (big "if") you're making any coherent point, it's that your
dictionary says I got it backwards and in fact one can't be dependent
without being addicted? Perhaps ... but a MEDICAL dictionary says the
opposite.

You still lose ... even when you continually delete substance to harp
on semantics. Very sad.