Quote:
|
Yes Yes, lets ask about a part of a law I read in 210 after it was passed.
|
You said you knew it perfectly, you have demonstrated that your claim is false.
Quote:
|
A 2,000 plus page law by the way
|
Sounds complicated, I thought you said it wasn't complicated.
Plus of course that doesn't even go near the many many thousands of other pages in other documents which are directly referenced and/or amended by the 2000+ page document.
It certainly does make it look like it was a rather silly claim you made, and implies it was a rather sillier attempt to stand by that claim after it clearly fell to pieces round your feet.
Not at all, the individual is irrelevant, the issue lies in the claims being made, or the lies as the case may be
Quote:
|
you never prove your point.
|
Sorry but the examples prove that the point is made and very easily made.
Your claims were ludicrous and obviously ludicrous, as a legal "expert" you should understand the importance of words you choose to utilise.
Quote:
|
I offer points that are accepted fact much of the time.
|
No, you offer opinion that you accept as fact, that is not the same thing at all.
Face it bubbles your problem on this can be very quickly and accurately summarised in a way that is undeniably true.
#1 you claimed knowledge of a document(perfect knowledge no less) which you clearly lack knowledge of
#2 you claimed a very lengthy and very complex set of legal documentation was not complicated.
Your fail was obvious, your attempt to stick by your fail has made it an epic fail. It really is that simple(unlike the legislation
)