I poo'ed the opinion of an attorney who later admitted that he wrote it in haste, mangled his argument, and who wrote in the brief treatment of the case that he had not read the opinion. Yet, he offered an opinion on it, as though his opinion based on conjecture from three excerpts of a 38 PAGE opinion means squat.
I am certain, from his lackluster opinion and gross lack of knowledge on the matter he was commenting on, his field of law does not brush against tort law as applied to religion, whereas the student who wrote the piece is specializing in that niche and attends a school that is wonderfully suited to that pursuit of law.
Her paper was published in one of the most well regarded of the four journals that specialize in this area of law (probably the second most well regarded) and, contrary to the claims of the estimable Eduardo, underwent much more severe scrutiny prior to publication because she was a student. However, his ignorance on that topic is understandable given that he admits to never having been published.
He also linked to a Web site that purports to rank journals by impact, yet on closer inspection the Web site itself cautions against weighing its ranking system as accurate. The Web site he linked to stated that the best way to find out how a specific journal is viewed is to compare it to other similar journals. He failed to do so and his subsequent judgment and report on the quality of the journal was exactly what the Web site indicated one would arrive at, erroneous.
He was hasty, rash, and weakened his own credibility by failing to properly communicate the intent of "recklessness" as it pertains to misrepresentation. My credential in shredding his ill-informed and error-filled treatment of his own analogy regarding misrepresentation as it relates to the lemon laws is that I have personally EXPERIENCED that scenario and successfully pressed it through court.
Now, given that reality—i.e. that I know how the law interprets "recklessness" from first hand experience—as well as his other grossly inaccurate, hasty, and ill-informed conclusions pertinent to his "poo'ing" of this opinion, I find that his opinion is very probably like his posts in other respects: unprofessional, discourteous, poorly timed, and grossly flawed.
Read this thread again: http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/11/103682/1.ashx
3. I would consider it as helping to IMPROVE the religion that I cherish as the faith of my youth
Tell me, do you think he might be biased? I certainly would never claim that this religion is a cherished memory of my youth. Neither would I happily tear down the hopes of those who would attempt to use this tool. He is feeding into what you want to believe. Go for it. It won't change the outcome, really.