So what you really mean is:"Nightshade, I have no ability to refute your arguments, so I'll just rehash all the crap I've already spewed and prove absolutely nothing again. Then I'll ignore your challenge and engage in forced inter-laughter with my e*buddy DrUMB, because he's a fucking idiot, too."

If your argument hasn't been easily refuted, then explain to me how six years of studying and practicing law doesn't provide the skills to practice as a Barrister, instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that your argument hasn't been refuted while constantly ignoring the points its been defeated with.

If your argument hasn't been easily refuted, then explain to me how six years of studying and practicing law doesn't provide the skills to practice as a Barrister, instead of repeatedly stating your opinion that your argument hasn't been refuted while constantly ignoring the points its been defeated with.

I never stated that completion of a course of study will grant mystical powers of litigation, I simply stated that it's more than what's required, when combined with three years legal practice as a solicitor, to work competently as a barrister (the scenario you refer to). Creating exaggerated points to argue against while selectively avoiding others doesn't make your argument any less ineffective.

Your argument, ridiculously concluded after reading posts on the internet, is that I don't have the skills to practice as a barrister. Your problem is that your hasty desire for the internet tough guy routine stops you from engaging what limited mental capacity you have before you actually post. I doubt that there is a law student on the planet who professes to have the skills of a barrister when only two thirds of the way through their first semester of law school. Yet six years of theoretical and practical training in the chosen profession is more than adequate to provide the skills required.

I must admit I find the conundrum you've placed yourself in very amusing by claiming my debating skills "blow goats" while not being able to muster even a slightly effective counter-argument. If only all court room arguments were as easily defeated as yours then I would indeed possess the skills of a barrister at this present time.

That's a very faint reply in contrast to your usual routine of colourful names, adjectives, flames and icons, what's the matter? It's obvious I've addressed, and refuted every point you've tried to make (with ease I might add). Now you're implying I won't even finish law school, LOL such desperation.

Jesus fucking christ, this is like trying to explain to a retard that there's no Santa.
"But the presents are under the tree!"

Your debating skills suck. For evidence I point to the vast majority of your posts.
Ok, now this is where it's going to get tricky for you, because you're obviously very hard of thinking: Just because you complete your course of study and get a job (lol) DOES NOT mean you're going to be good at it. OK? Is that so hard to understand? In fact, because you're a dolt, the odds are really stacked against you here.
Feel free to regurgitate what's essentially the same shit you've posted five times now. As I said, this has become extremely fucking boring.

My debating skills suck, yet they are more than enough to refute every point you've made. And we aren't argueing as to whether I have the skills of a barrister at this present time, the point is six years in the future. Not only after study, but after three years practicing in the profession (a point you selectively ignore every time). When predicting something so far into the future one must use logic in order to arrive at a reasonable conclusion.

Your logic: six years of theoretical and practical training are irrelevant, the only thing that matters are present time posts read on a messageboard.

My logic: six years of theoretical and practical training are more than suffice to provide adequate skills, only a moron (such as yourself) would ignore this fact and base their argument on posts on a messageboard.

Unfortunately for you, simple, precise and obvious logic will defeat your preposterous assumption every single time without fail.

Keep telling yourself that. Just remember that if you actually make it to a courtroom, telling the judge you've won over and over again isn't going to change his ruling.
Idiot.

Keep telling yourself you won, you boring cunt. You can't argue your way out of a wet paper bag and the only person that can't see that here is you.

this shit is boring

impartial ruling goes to nightshades fatass over laws rinse/repeat routine

no problem...cunts...

Boeing