I can afford it because I represent the interests of a government agency in court when appealing actions...
And I want to convey to you that neither emotions nor the logic of the parties will influence the court's decision if there is a sufficient level of judicial competence. And this is correct – materials and evidence are all that the court needs...
Pasha, we are getting off topic.
There are materials and evidence. They need to be presented to the court for evaluation. Vic and I are saying that they should be presented using logic, not emotions.
Because no matter how much one tries to appeal to pity or emotions in court, the decision will be made in favor of the logical connection between the materials and evidence and the letter of the law, even if the latter seems unfair.
Merlinu.
You have gone into some kind of wilderness with incomprehensible aggression towards me. Regarding constructive criticism - perhaps you only read the forum in fragments - go back several pages, for example, to the end of this post /post/582068/. As for the assessment of your constructive contribution:
As for what I specifically did (this relates to the topic about "talking nonsense...") - let the Community judge it.
Merlin, go get some sleep :)
P.S. There is no longer any constructive discussion in the thread; instead, there is off-topic chatter after Oelm began criticizing Vic's writing style. And Sticky doesn't want to bring the Tournament to completion. The others are waiting in ambush.