In my view the problem is that some posters claim expertise and expect their expert input to be accepted by posters but there is no evidence either in the content of the posts or offered in some other way by the poster as to whether that content is genuine or not.
It is perfectly acceptable for people to post anything and say this is my expert opinion so long as that opinion can be challenged and then defended. If the only defence to any challenge is, "I am right, you are wrong, now stop arguing" then the claim to expertise can, in my view, rightly be questioned.
It becomes even more insidious if the moderators then state that no challenge is allowed and posters who challenge this expert will be warned or potentially be banned.
It is even more insidious still if the challenge is supported by good evidence but the "expert" provides nothing to support his or her original claim. Then there literally is no debate, just propaganda being issued by the "expert".
It then becomes a waste of time posting because anything which goes against the "expert" will simply be deleted.
If I post something which I cannot support with evidence then that is open to challenge and if others post evidence which contradicts it good on them.
If I post something from my personal knowledge, for example from a conversation with a lawyer, I cannot expect it to be accepted here as expert evidence. You have no way of knowing how I might have forgotten what was said, twisted what was said or even made up what was said. You can either accept it or dismiss it. You can challenge it and offer evidence against it and weigh up the responses.
That is how I believe things should work with those offering "expertise" on a forum.
