sitting back I think I finally get this. it definitely confirms the lawyer thing.
just a complete inability to admit that that you've lost an argument, that you are wrong, and the other 50 people might be right.
when you are a lawyer you have to argue what ever side of the argument you're on even if you know it's complete BS. regardless of how little grounding in fact your side of the argument is, it's your job to try and sell it as the truth
so that must be it. he screwed up and said something dumb, and then couldn't accept being out argued, so he couldn't back down. Argues for a living after all, can’t be proven wrong by amateurs.
that would explain the continued backing of a completely asinine position on a simple issue, the ignoring the meat of posts, and finding some small, insignificant and technical part of a post to rebut because that’s the only point you could get a foothold on.
anybody else see this or is it just me?