until you are of that opinion
That's not an opinion, but deduction from the evidence.
According to Klinghardt, if you think that Mcn preceded Luke, then you are obliged to think that Mcn precedes Mark, also.
But that's not what I have shown in the webpage I posted. On the contrary, Luke preceded Mcn.
Assume, for mere sake of discussion, that Luke is lost and you have only Mcn. Under that premise, do you think still that Mark precedes Mcn?
Luke is not lost. So I am not going to waste my time on that.
Can you think really that the Parable of Wineskins doesn't assume already the (marcionite) distinction between a New and an Old Testamentum?
I don't see what you mean. The parable of the wineskins appears in Luke and Mark. As for Marcion's version, we cannot be sure on how Marcion wrote it.
Mark assumes the knowledge of this episode, given the accusation otherwise without apparent explanation found in 14:58:
“We heard him say, ‘I will destroy this temple that is made with hands, and in three days I will build another, not made with hands.’”
"Mark" knew about the destruction of the temple and probably initiated the resurrection after three days.
So "Mark" likely meant: the temple will be destroyed (so also Saduccees' Judaism), but Jesus' resurrection will replace it (with Christian beliefs).
No need for "Mark" to know about Luke/Mcn 21:5-6.
And the so-called messianic secret in gMark 4:11-12, I think "Mark" explained why the Galileans did not become Christians (because they did not understand the parables).