Replies

DiogenesLamp wrote: “My, but we have the lawyers penchant for splitting hairs.”

Sorry if you find what lawyers do too complex, but I’ve been telling you that understanding the precedents is like that. Real experts, such as the editors of /Black’s Law Dictionary/ actually have the expertise to do so.

“When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim ‘no we didn’t.’”

You quote me falsely.

You mistake me. I find what lawyers do overly simplistic and childish. My expertise is in utilizing physical laws and logic, not man made prattle and procedure. (ritual.) Nowadays I see little difference between law and religion. In both cases, the high priests wear robes and hand down the word of "God."

“When I argue we overthrew British law concerning citizenship, you Obama defenders claim ‘no we didn’t.’”,/i>

You quote me falsely.

Not at all. You misread or miscomprehended. I simply lumped you in with all the others with whom I have argued. As I cannot see much difference between one silly argument and another, I have extreme difficulty distinguishing your arguments from the rest of the crowd. That you specifically may not have made this argument does not make the others that have done so less stupid, it just means that you don't share that Particular stupidity. As it is, you seem to have more than enough of your own bad arguments to compensate.

I notice you also skirt my salient points. Does it never occur to you that were your position correct, there would be no supporting basis for our position whatsoever? We have dragged up historical precedent after precedent, and yet according to your theory, none of these precedents should even exist!

In my messages of yesterday, I have caused the fish to jump in the boat, and still you cannot seem to grasp it.

This is the sort of thing I do.

I know of few lawyers smart enough or knowledgeable enough to comprehend the immutable laws of God and Nature. Doubtlessly some exist because I have heard of such, but these are likely the ones that learned engineering first, and got a law degree as an afterthought.

The difference between the laws of man and the laws of God, is that the laws of God are consistent and make sense, while the laws of man are sophistry, whim and ritual. In Science and Engineering, sophistry, whim and ritual are nothing more than bad logic. We don't need a "court" to tell us when we have interpreted the laws of nature wrongly. Whatever we are attempting to accomplish simply will not work.