You misunderstand if you think I'm claiming to be a supreme authority on everything. My point, as always, was only that I am not an amateur like so many other people in this forum, waxing endlessly about things I really don't understand or have never touched. You tried to tell me that my experience was irrelevant, even though I've logged eight hour days actually dealing with the United States Code and having other people--lawyers, economists, etc.--depend on what I did. How could you, for example, possibly expect to know more about the code than I do? You cannot reasonably have such an expectation.
My work? Whether or not you realize it, you've seen and felt my work. My hands have actually been in some of the controversies discussed in this forum. I cannot possibly explain what that means for obvious reasons and I never well, and I don't really care what you think about it, but I'm the educated professional who spent some of my time in one of those fancy Washington office buildings; I only got there, into my specific position, because I am one of the cognitive elite in this country (indeed, not just the top 20% or the top 10%, but the top 1% for intellectual ability by any statistical measure; line up 100 random people and I will, objectively, exceed 99 of them).
Who are you?
That doesn't alter the fact that I have special education, training, and experience that you do not. That's why, for example, I had to correct all of your misconceptions about the United States Code: what it means to be "updated," whether the code is a complete picture of the law, what it means when the law revision counsel edits the text, what it means to be enacted as positive law, etc.
You didn't understand these things because you had probably never dealt with the code or those questions until they came up in this discussion, and yet you're calling my work experience worthless and irrelevant?
