Expertise

[Jean-Pierre]

I have noticed a creeping tendency on this forum for posters (on both sides) to question the expertise of their opponents. 

e.g

"In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's "

______________

This is an internet forum, for heavens sake.  Its a discussion group, not a court of law or an expert witness program.  We are none of us experts in the subjects under discussion (Portuguese law, forensics, VRD, police procedure etc etc). 

However, we are all able to debate intelligently, have opinions and draw conclusions based on experience, google, logical thought, discussion.

As soon as the debate turns from force of argument and logical reasoning, mixed with (hopefully) good natured humour and banter, to "what are your qualifications for saying that" we might as well all pack up and go home.

[John]

For me the 'expertise' or otherwise is in the quality of the posts.  I will allow this thread on the basis that a frank discussion about such issues might be helpful.

Could I just add that there are many professional and former professional, academic and knowledgeable posters on the forum, their contributions must not be underestimated under any circumstances. 

[sadie]

For me the 'expertise' or otherwise is in the quality of the posts.  I will allow this thread on the basis that a frank discussion about such issues might be helpful.

Could I just add that there are many professional and former professional, academic and knowledgeable posters on the forum, their contributions must not be underestimated under any circumstances.

I agree with that ... but ALL views MUST be equally valid

The destruction of Herberto Janosches contribution was disgraceful
The destruction of Debunkers arguments likewise
Not to mention the brown nosing and then knifing of Dhingra.    He was an expert too.

There have been several others who are experts who have also been ruthlessly scoffed at ... and have left here in disgust

Serendipity claims to be an expert on Martin Grime.  Have we seen any evidence?   If he is, we should all listen, but is he? 



The scoffers and deliberate underminers should be banned.  They are trying to prevent the truth getting out ... and one has to wonder why? 

There has to be a reason

[icabodcrane]

For me the 'expertise' or otherwise is in the quality of the posts.  I will allow this thread on the basis that a frank discussion about such issues might be helpful.

Could I just add that there are many professional and former professional, academic and knowledgeable posters on the forum, their contributions must not be underestimated under any circumstances.

I agree that valuable contribution to the forum should be appreciated,  although it does not, necessarily,  have to be related to  professional or academic credentials

For instance,  I appreciated Redblossom's almost encylopedic knowledge of the case,  and her ability to lay hand to relevantly sourced material whenever the need arose

Likewise,  Anne Gueddes,  whilst never claiming 'expertise'  was able,  through personal effort,  to bring exclusive coverage of the libel trial in Lisbon,  which added great Kudos to this forum

It is regretful that these two  'non expert'  but undeniably  valuable members,  no longer post here

[Mr Gray]

I agree that valuable contribution to the forum should be appreciated,  although it does not, necessarily,  have to be related to  professional or academic credentials

For instance,  I appreciated Redblossom's almost encylopedic knowledge of the case,  and her ability to lay hand to relevantly sourced material whenever the need arose

Likewise,  Anne Gueddes,  whilst never claiming 'expertise'  was able,  through personal effort,  to bring exclusive coverage of the libel trial in Lisbon,  which added great Kudos to this forum

It is regretful that these two  'non expert'  but undeniably  valuable members,  no longer post here

I have to point out that red also made claims that were not true....such as Kate said she did not search because it was too dark and cold...which was shown to be untrue

[ferryman]

I have noticed a creeping tendency on this forum for posters (on both sides) to question the expertise of their opponents. 

e.g

"In response to one of my posts yesterday Davel told me that several posters have an elementary knowledge of dog handling and the use of EVRDs.
In my professional world having an "elementary knowledge" would mean one had attended at least one basic awareness course on the topic presented by an expert. I incline to the view the posters to whom he refers have not attended courses but have Googled or have read a Janet & John's guide to EVRD's "

______________

This is an internet forum, for heavens sake.  Its a discussion group, not a court of law or an expert witness program.  We are none of us experts in the subjects under discussion (Portuguese law, forensics, VRD, police procedure etc etc). 

However, we are all able to debate intelligently, have opinions and draw conclusions based on experience, google, logical thought, discussion.

As soon as the debate turns from force of argument and logical reasoning, mixed with (hopefully) good natured humour and banter, to "what are your qualifications for saying that" we might as well all pack up and go home.

I would agree  with that.  You don't, yourself, have to be a top international footballer or cricketer to watch top cricketers or footballers in action and appreciate if they are playing well or badly.  You just have to understand the rudiments of the sport.

In the same way, by reading around a subject that is practised in real-life, such as dog-handling, you can certainly make informed and educated assessments on whether points of good or bad practice have been employed by practitioners in the field.

A single example will suffice.  The job of any forensic team (including its canine component) is to identify and pass on to a competent forensic laboratory items of potential forensic interest in a state as closely preserved as possible to the state it was in when found.  The reason for that is that you want to identify and analyse DNA from those items that might help to identify suspects or victims.

It stands to reason, then, that you don't want dogs having physical contact with items they are tasked to inspect.

And we can be sure that that imperative was taken no less seriously at PdL just because the inspection came several months after the crime, as evidenced by the fact that the process of lifting fixtures and fittings from the apartment 5a was filmed so that the bods at the FSS could have confidence best practice was followed.

[Cariad]

I have to point out that red also made claims that were not true....such as Kate said she did not search because it was too dark and cold...which was shown to be untrue

What are you on about now?

Red was brilliant. She had more knowledge on this case than most of us put together.

One of the reasons Kate Mccannn gave for not searching was that it was dark.*


*Edit, having read the exact words used, I no longer believe that Kate Mccann said she didn't search 'because it was too dark'.

[Mr Gray]

What are you on about now?

Red was brilliant. She had more knowledge on this case than most of us put together.

One of the reasons Kate Mccannn gave for not searching was that it was dark.

You obviously don't remember the exchange of posts when red eventually had to admit she was wrong

[Mr Gray]

What are you on about now?

Red was brilliant. She had more knowledge on this case than most of us put together.

One of the reasons Kate Mccannn gave for not searching was that it was dark.

Do you have a cite for that. You really shouldn't post things like that unless you can support them

[Cariad]

You obviously don't remember the exchange of posts when red eventually had to admit she was wrong

No, I don't. I think considering the contribution she made to this forum that it's rather petty and mean spirited to bring it up now she's no longer here to defend herself.

Still, I guess that if you're still trying to undermine her, it's a compliment in a way. Even without her presence, her almost limitless knowledge needs to be belittled in any way it can.

[Cariad]

Do you have a cite for that. You really shouldn't post things like that unless you can support them

You're are completely right of course and I shall have a look now, in a minute*. If I can't find one, I'll edit my post.


*A Welsh phrase that translates as 'after I've brought the washing in and checked whether son number two and his GF are hungry.

[Mr Gray]

No, I don't. I think considering the contribution she made to this forum that it's rather petty and mean spirited to bring it up now she's no longer here to defend herself.

Still, I guess that if you're still trying to undermine her, it's a compliment in a way. Even without her presence, her almost limitless knowledge needs to be belittled in any way it can.

her limitless knowledge had limits it seems...perhaps we could leave out personalities and stick with facts...cite for Kates comment

[icabodcrane]

her limitless knowledge had limits it seems...perhaps we could leave out personalities and stick with facts...cite for Kates comment

Goodness me,  Red must have really rattled your cage    ...  even in  her absence you can't hold in the bile  !

Anyway,  this thread is about the value of expertise to the forum  and  not about the specifics of a debate you once had with a member who you harbour bitterness towards

You are taking it off topic

[Cariad]

her limitless knowledge had limits it seems...perhaps we could leave out personalities and stick with facts...cite for Kates comment

This is the best I can do.

Kate: And you know Oprah...
 
Oprah: ...nothing can happen quick enough...
 
Kate: It was so dark...
 
Oprah: uh huh...
 
Kate: it was dark, erm I've never had such a long night it was dark and you're just praying for the light you know to come up to get out there it's just...
 
Oprah: uh huh...


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id234.html

So not exactly "we didn't search cause it was too dark".

I think now I've read that, I'll edit my previous comment to make it more accurate.

[stephen25000]

This is the best I can do.

Kate: And you know Oprah...
 
Oprah: ...nothing can happen quick enough...
 
Kate: It was so dark...
 
Oprah: uh huh...
 
Kate: it was dark, erm I've never had such a long night it was dark and you're just praying for the light you know to come up to get out there it's just...
 
Oprah: uh huh...


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id234.html

So not exactly "we didn't search cause it was too dark".

I think now I've read that, I'll edit my previous comment to make it more accurate.

Yet other people did go out 'in the dark' and searched for several hours and on subsequent days, including holidaymakers and residents of the area.

Now who didn't do that ?

Tough question, that one.