The confusion arose because you added in response to a negative poster "so technically you’d be breaking Federal law and I have a feeling that you wouldn’t do so well in Federal prison."
If you claim to be a federal officer in your home, which an FFDO is not (that is a certification sanctioned by a federal agency) and a U.S. Marshal is, then that is the only logical inference. If you are an airline pilot, then your employer would be the airline, not the United States government. That person is a civilian when not on an airplane, not a law enforcement officer.
Here is the federal law. Note the "while engaged in or on account of the performance of official duties" requirement.
That link is a fact from a reputable source. Your opinion as to what an FFDO is, which is
not consistent with federal definition, is an erroneous opinion. The links make that statement credible.
And I could care less about your resume. As others have stated, you put the information out there and claimed to be a federal officer in your home, which is patently wrong. And, to make that point clear, I have provided actual authority, through links to outside legal authority, to establish that you are wrong about you and your understanding of your profession. In your response, note the absence of links in the opinions you offer in reply.
And this sums up the issues with your posts, and makes you sound like you are 12 years old. I did not threaten or insult you, and I do not condone it (I will employ sarcasm at some point when there is no rational discussion). I was actually trying to help you make your points here, if you actually have a point. Not one of your responses to those four points above has any hyperlink authority whatsoever, which makes them your unsupported opinion, not fact. The posters here taken seriously - consider Deus, agree or disagree with him - offer actual hyperlinks when making an argument. Note that none of your so called facts under the 4 points you attempt to respond to, have any link other than your statement. In providing a link to the Amendola MMA training, you actually provided a basis for a rational discussion. You may have simply misunderstood the article, which happens. As you stated, if "anyone who knows how to use the internet can pull up" that authority, then that means you can easily do it. Why didn't you and why haven't you, if it is such a simple thing to do? Now prove your point and show you can answer those points with something other than text you type and then claim to be fact.
And if you want to offer a put down to someone, it's "more credible", not 'creditable'. Opinions and arguments are credible. Actions are creditable.
This is my point, that Amendola will turn it around in the end? No. Most intelligent responses have outright stated or implied that less than 3% of a contract is too small a sample to call the deal a failure. Maybe you do have a reading comprehension problem. Try to find the post from me in this thread that says that. That should be easier than the Internet information you claim is readily available that you haven't produced. I wouldn't bet the farm on him being a steady contributor, given his history. At week 6, I just am not looking to write him off (and for the record, I never had major issues with Lloyd, nor changed my position on him). If you claim to be practical in doing so, I hope you do not have money in the stock market because you are likely to lose a bunch with market fluctuations. He either contributes in the near future, or he is cut like every other injury riddled player that has played for the Pats (see Jake Ballard). And for the record as well, I believe Welker was history, regardless of whether Amendola was signed. If the Pats wanted Welker, they could have cleared the money to pay him. It isn't necessarily an either/or proposition.
