Your response is, in short, conjecture upon conjecture. You can state it as fact all you want and you can site all the sources you want, but at the end of the day you do no favors stating conjecture as fact.

Mark, at the very earliest, is dated to the late 60's (and even that is dubious)

Bologna. And if you can state conjecture as fact so simply then I'll call it out as b.s. just as simply.

and the other Gospels all use Mark

Perhaps as a familiarity, or a common familiarity more likely. But "use" in the sense of sitting down copy-in-hand and adding to it? Unlikely. There's too many unexplained departures from Mark for that fantasy to hold true. Again, please stop stating pure conjecture as fact.

There are no legitimate at all arguments for pre-70 datings

I gave you 4 reasons (and the 5th one referring to a whole slew of lesser reasons for anyone who cares to look into it).

I tried presenting both sides (albeit with my responses to the late dating). All you've done is dismissed the other side without really interacting with it. You repeatedly (not just here, but in all your posts quite frankly) state conjecture as solid fact.

You're doing no one any favors, including yourself.