The fact that you presume to know more about law than actual attorneys
"Presume" is not the word you were looking for. Presuming something is based on probability . . . some sort of rationality. By saying presume like you did, you are saying there is strong evidence or reason to believe I would know more than the attorneys. You are intending to say that it is absurd that I would assume to know more about law than actual attorneys, but by saying "presume," you are giving credit that there is a strong basis for my belief . . . and that wasn't your intention.
Be smarter.
But yes, I am very confident that I know more about certain aspects of law than many attorneys. You see, most attorneys specialize in only one or two specific focuses of law. My suit against Cookman that I won (more accurately, settled for a high amount)? That was almost entirely done by me. The only things the attorney did were procedural (filing the documents, etc.). Hell, he even agreed to a fairly large reduction in his percentage after I called him out on it. During the seven hour, two day special deputy hearing, Cookman was represented by two attorneys. I represented myself (my attorney said I could handle it). It led to Cookman's in-house counsel being fired, then their next attorney from a large Miami firm being fired, then their interim president (a judge) and their next attorney (a female from a large Orlando firm) agreeing to my demands.
A more recent example . . . I have yet another car issue (involving oil again) in which BMW has settled to class action lawsuits against them. The first attorney I retained for it had NEVER tried a Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act in her entire career. Hell, she worked primarily in family law. The only experience she had was in one class in 2L (25 years ago). I educated her on a ton of it. She had to research aspects of the Act and confirm what I believed to be true about it. The only thing she corrected me on, which was done weeks later after she researched it, was the amount of possible punitive award.
She's an attorney, yet she knew (and had no problem asking ME for help with the Act during our first few meetings/conversations) that I knew more about that particular field of law. Why is that so hard for your feeble mind to understand?
I guarantee you many bright people who have gone through contested divorces/custody cases know more about divorce/family law than a patent attorney (or any attorney who has never practiced family law).
The fact that you presume to know more about medicine than actual doctors
Making shit up again? The only argument I have remotely had with a doctor on this board on that topic was about male circumcision. It was an opinion argument that wasn't about facts.
Back up your claim with facts, liar.
Lately, you have been laughed at, mocked, and repeatedly proven wrong on here, yet in your mind, you're still the champ.
.
Where have I been "repeatedly proven wrong" on here "lately"? Repeatedly should allow you to easily come up with four or five instances, right? Or are you lying again, liar?
Face it - what you claimed I was wrong about regarding Christianity exposed you to be more of a moron than everyone already knew. That's why, with a board full of Christians, nobody is coming to your defense to say that you are right and that I am wrong on it.