This is kind of interesting. I wrote a couple weeks ago about the lawsuit filed against the World Poker Tour by 7 of the top poker players in the world, and about Daniel Negreanu's negative reaction to that lawsuit. I had no idea it had turned into a major war of words between Negreanu and Greg Raymer, one of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit (and an attorney himself) until I saw this article about it. In comments in the chatbox on Poker Stars, Raymer said that Negreanu was either "stupid" or a "sock puppet for the WPT" and he hammered Negreanu for offering an unqualified opinion on the matter.
It's certainly fair game for Raymer to criticize Negreanu for weighing in on the legal merit of the case given that Negreanu has no legal training and two of the plaintiffs do (Andy Bloch is a Harvard Law grad, in addition to Raymer), but Negreanu says that he consulted with attorneys who said that the case is weak. With my admittedly limited knowledge of antitrust law, I tend to agree that the case is going to be difficult to win.
In my opinion, Daniel isnt a guy who just spouts off about something unless he knows a little about it .. when i did the interview with him he had no problem admitting when he was not familiar with a subject (unless of course it was hockey afterall he is a maple leafs fan) generally he is an easy going guy and doesnt let alot of stuff get to him .
from my personal experience i have found that some lawyers simply get upset with anyone who isnt a lawyer giving an opinion on a legal matter if it differs from theirs (not to say this is true of all lawyer or even many of them )just some i have ran into
yes, all is good . glad to hear from ya 8)