Michael Ash wrote:

As to whether "waving certificates" in people's faces adds value, it's
not much different than sourcing an official or authoritative reference,
is it? If we were talking about combat it would be relevant for the
readers to understand that the people in the discussion are a video game
geek versus a combat veteran.

It's relevant to the discussion, sure, when you present it as backing for
your opinion or for facts. But when you come straight out and shout
someone dow, saying that they're not allowed to disagree with you because
you have credentials and they don't, that's just bad taste.


Please tell me at what point I "came straight out and shouted somebody
down," and, more importantly, where I've EVER said they're "not allowed
to disagree" because I have credentials and they don't.

It's fine to disagree right up to the point where you're disagreeing
with virtually everybody from private pilots to airline pilots.

If this were rec.surgery.brain and some philosophy student was arguing
with brain surgeons all day, every day, and then admonishing them for
their answers, I wouldn't for a second expect the surgeons not to remind
the student they're they're doctors and that he's not qualified to
contradict literally ALL of them. (Not to mention ignoring their
authoritative references and dodging any challenge to cite sources for
him own information.)

But I never said anybody "wasn't allowed" to disagree with me simply
because of my credentials.

-c