Did I say that I've "ripped HCA judges to shreds through argument?"
[youtube]rDfRd0IZ-Vo[/youtube]
I fail to see the what the big deal is with that statement?
Let me see. You took umbrage that I was patronising towards fire, specifically
the post where I told him there is no such thing as an important person.
Whilst giving me the "How dare you" be patronising towards Fire lecture, you then
proceeded to tell me how important you are, how you have many "outstanding degrees",
and how you tear high court judges apart. I notice you conveniently didn't post that
embarrassing tirade.
You took your post down, destroying the context of the above statement (which was
very wise). I would suggest that telling me how important and clever you are, at the
very least, does not enhance your arguments (and makes you look like a total pratt
at the same time).
I would further suggest that bragging about your own self importance was an attempt to
set yourself up as an authority figure (the lawyer with the biggest wig or whatever).
I would also suggest that you were engaging in a fallacious line of argument, called
"an appeal to authority". However, you whipped your post down quick smart so
you destroyed the context.
If you wish to appeal to authority, at the very least you should be one, which in
an anonymous forum is a little tricky.
If you like, the logic appeared along these lines:
P1 ANTiLAG is a very important and powerful lawyer
P2 CrazyTiger is not a an important lawyer.
C ANTiLAG is necessarily correct.
While we are at it. I wasn't too keen on this logic either.
P1 Loudstat is dumb in the opinion of ANTiLAG
P2 Loudstat bested CrazyTiger in the opinion of ANTiLAG
C Anything CrazyTiger says is wrong because Loudy is stupid.
PS: I don't recall the above quote (Loudy might). I remember
the statement as I quoted it. Feel free to change your post though.
As a very important lawyer once told me "Tis my right to edit".