Expertise

[icabodcrane]

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.

You're talking about Serendipity aren't you   ? 

It sticks in your craw that this member has established credibility without disclosing personal details on the open forum

We all know what happens when those who express doubts about the McCanns disclose their identities  ...  nasty stuff 

So you have to accept that Admin has been provided with verification  ...  and that's that

[gilet]

You're talking about Serendipity aren't you   ? 

It sticks in your craw that this member has established credibility without disclosing personal details on the open forum

We all know what happens when those who express doubts about the McCanns disclose their identities  ...  nasty stuff 

So you have to accept that Admin has been provided with verification  ...  and that's that

I am talking about the only real way a forum can operate.

it does not stick in my craw at all.

I see it as a real flaw in a forum though when real debate cannot proceed, when evidenced posts are simply dismissed and/or deleted without proper explanation, when material cannot be legitimately challenged.

[stephen25000]

Pretty please change your mantra or start a thread why you think the Mccanns are crap parents and keep it there. Every single thread lately has been derailed by your silly comments. Equally, the comments about Goncalo being a crap detective shouldn't be brought into every bloody thread. It's 2014 we've heard it for the last six years or so. We know what the Mcanns/Goncalo should / shouldn't have done, move on.

For you 'move on' then would equate for ignoring what they did, and as Madeleine's fate has not been ascertained for sure, there remains the possibility she died in the apartment.

As to 'derailing', that is the mantra adopted by certain mccann supporters to deflect criticism. On that basis, you and they should 'move on'.

[Mr Gray]

You're talking about Serendipity aren't you   ? 

It sticks in your craw that this member has established credibility without disclosing personal details on the open forum

We all know what happens when those who express doubts about the McCanns disclose their identities  ...  nasty stuff 

So you have to accept that Admin has been provided with verification  ...  and that's that

It's a false statement to say serendipity has established credibility as posters are questioning that credibility and there is no facts to support it... I don't take your word for it...why should I ...have you established your credibility..certainly not. When you describe quite innocuous post as being full of bile and bitterness...you have no credibility.

[jassi]

It's a false statement to say serendipity has established credibility as posters are questioning that credibility and there is no facts to support it... I don't take your word for it...why should I ...have you established your credibility..certainly not. When you describe quite innocuous post as being full of bile and bitterness...you have no credibility.

Has anybody? - other than the handful who have  ably demonstrated  their  their credentials as complete arseholes?

[Mr Gray]

Has anybody? - other than the handful who have  ably demonstrated  their  their credentials as complete arseholes?

On this point we are in total agreemnet

[gilet]

There was no insulting of any poster here in my earlier post which has been removed.

To summarise it, I said that if someone wishes to be seen as an expert their credentials for that expertise should be available and not just dictated to members.

If a person cannot answer challenges supported by evidence with anything other than "shut up, I'm right" the expertise does not enhance debate.

And if supposed expert posters posts are removed then it is reasonable to wonder what they contained which necessitated moderators removing them.

Genuine forum debate and seeking the truth demands that people explain themselves properly.

[John]

This is probably slightly off topic as Serendipity has never claimed to be an expert.  He/she is a very well informed person whose credentials I have established as genuine.  I spoke to them again today and was given lots of new information which I would love to share but cannot at this time for legal reasons.   I am hopeful that Mr Grime will be able to post once the Madeleine investigation is wrapped up.

[Mr Gray]

This is probably slightly off topic as Serendipity has never claimed to be an expert.  He/she is a very well informed person whose credentials I have established as genuine.  I spoke to them again today and was given lots of new information which I would love to share but cannot at this time for legal reasons.   I am hopeful that Mr Grime will be able to post once the Madeleine investigation is wrapped up.

 Don't ask me how I know John...but this case will never be wrapped up.

[John]

Don't ask me how I know John...but this case will never be wrapped up.

I would expect it to be wound down even if not solved.  SY cannot go on chasing ghosts for ever.

[jassi]

I did not rubbish the dogs. I was talking about evidence, but included the dogs

Mr Grime:-No evidential or intelligence reliability can be made from this
alert unless it can be confirmed with corroborating evidence.

I didn't imply you did and sorry if you took it that way.

Despite no physical evidence being found to support them, the behaviour of the dogs sets alarm bells ringing in some peoples heads, resulting in the rubbishing of the dogs, their training and their trainer, whenever possible.

[Mr Gray]

I would expect it to be wound down even if not solved.  SY cannot go on chasing ghosts for ever.

I agree and don't expect it to be solved...so I don't see how Grime will comment if it merely shelved

[Anna]

I didn't imply you did and sorry if you took it that way.

Despite no physical evidence being found to support them, the behaviour of the dogs sets alarm bells ringing in some peoples heads, resulting in the rubbishing of the dogs, their training and their trainer, whenever possible.

No problem Jassi,
                        What are we allowed to question and debate, if not evidence pertaining to the disappearance?

[jassi]

As far as I'm concerned, people can debate whatever they like, just as long as they don't tell lies and interpret the few facts that there are dishonestly, while passing it off as the truth.

[Anna]

As far as I'm concerned, people can debate whatever they like, just as long as they don't tell lies and interpret the few facts that there are dishonestly, while passing it off as the truth.

That's fair enough, as long as all are happy to accept the truth of course!