(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

A truly reliable source must possess both expertise and objectivity.

Does Michel possess expertise? Almost certainly.

Is he objective? Very likely not.

In today's world, I'm not certain that it is actually possible to become an expert while retaining objectivity.

(11-23-2019 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

A truly reliable source must possess both expertise and objectivity.

Does Michel possess expertise? Almost certainly.

Is he objective? Very likely not.

In today's world, I'm not certain that it is actually possible to become an expert while retaining objectivity.

Agree - with the general idea. Which is why I found it so odd that Tanq and others pushed back on the idea that the author did not poses an expertise in the topic he discussed (Ukrain politics and corruption).

Disagreeing with his analysis or conclusions isn’t doubting his expertise and is reasonable. But trying to argue that he has no expertise or that his background doesn’t indicate he has expertise was a bit wonky.

(11-23-2019 03:41 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 01:59 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(11-23-2019 12:26 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:56 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-22-2019 05:44 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If you get a PH.D. in mouth breathing, and publish some articles in Mouth Breathers Quarterly, you could be considered an expert mouth breather.

But, but, but...... I have so much experience at that..... {sniffle}.

(11-22-2019 09:33 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  What should Mr. Michel have done differently to be considered a reliable source?

Get two Ph.Ds, or write for Mad Magazine? Wear a bow tie? Get Hillary's endorsement?

None of that window dressing makes him, IMO, either reliable or unreliable. My point is not to verify by looking at the window dressing.


Kind of like how, at a trial, one side can present its experts, and the other side can counter with their experts. Both sets of experts are well credentialed, and at least one side is wrong. I, a juror, will choose which one I believe, if any, on other factors than merely their CV.

That's my point. I guess Tanq will have to explain his. Or not. I just enjoy joshing with him.

This makes no sense, as it suggests no one can be considered to have an expertise in a topic.

Well, you're the expert on expertise.

(11-23-2019 05:19 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Disagreeing with his analysis or conclusions isn’t doubting his expertise and is reasonable. But trying to argue that he has no expertise or that his background doesn’t indicate he has expertise was a bit wonky.

I think you meant "wacky" or something similar.
"Wonky" is roughly synonymous with "expert"! :)

Quote:But trying to argue that he has no expertise or that his background doesn’t indicate he has expertise was a bit wonky.

Quote: [arguing] that the author did not poses an expertise in the topic he discussed

If you bothered to read, my comments are he MAY or MAY NOT have the expertise. The issue that OO and I have made is that in our opinion, the vaunted secondary degree that you parrot as the endpoint answer, from WHEREVER, does not automatically confer such expertise in the specific area of the article.

It would be nice if you read what is placed out there. Instead of the continued strawman that not only did you do (like you place above), but seemingly continue unabated.

Interestingly enough, you b-tch your underwear yellow about how I 'make people argue positions they dont take', but that is *precisely* what you seemingly do here, and have done until this point. Put your fing reading glasses on, son. Jeezus Krist in a casserole.

Cut what is either a severely dishonest, or just a chronic, ignorant, and incorrect characterization. I cannot tell what it is at this point. You even continue this *after* my earlier statement of 'may or may not' *and* after OOs comment above that notes that same position.

The issue is *your* statement that 'The Degree' was the sole point of your consideration of expertise for the author. Our comments are noted solely in your apparent subservience to that degree in that statement. As to the specific author, at most we have said 'he may, or may not'. Yet you continue to fing harp on our supposed comments that 'he does not'. Like a gd dog on a year old bone.

Seriously son, learn to g-ddamn read. And spare us your fing strawman historonics, at least for short spell.

(11-23-2019 04:12 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  A truly reliable source must possess both expertise and objectivity.

Does Michel possess expertise? Almost certainly.

Is he objective? Very likely not.

In today's world, I'm not certain that it is actually possible to become an expert while retaining objectivity.

This may relate to your distinction on objectivity --- but the *degree* itself has lost the imprimatur of de facto expertise for me.

What I alluded to, and apparently lad never bothered to pick up on despite his worldliness, unassailable brilliance, and openness to ideas that might cut against a preset condition, is the literally hundreds of experts (via litigation) in which have steadfastly planted their flag on unassailably incorrect positions in my first hand experience. Many without being paid to do so. And with degrees that are far *more* extensive than the vaunted M(A)? from Columbia that the lad uses in his Somme-like defense of 'credentials'.

But since this falls in mere 'real world experience', and is not reported in the Grey Lady or WaPo, I am sure that lad will not accept that above statement either. Perhaps I should look up some asshat who wrote a scholarly Master's dissertation on the subject to reach the level that lad wishes to see and assuage him in that means. Or not.

I already brought this point up, but unfortunately the lad either did not see it or dismissed it with seeing it, as I now note that the position of disbelief of an instant recognition of the expertise of a degree is now termed 'pompous', and full of 'hubris'. The lad's dogged insistence on deeming my statements on the import of a degree (Or CV) (i.e. along with the NY Times, and the Washington Post, I assume these are the Holy Trinity of his sacrament) as such leads me to believe that lad has a rather bad case of infirmitus homo productus culmus. Since I do not have a Master's degree in Latin (the sin qua non of expertise mind you), nor am a physician, that may not be the proper terminology, and my humble apologies for even thinking I could string that term together.

But, this pompous, hubristic, intentionally ignorant proto-human has stretched its brain quite beyond its capacity in this, and feels an urgent need to eat some peanut butter butter (stretched so beyond its capacity it notes the double butter and in a mouth breating manner simply notes it without editing it out) and enter into a long sleep to recover.

Quote: 'make people argue positions they dont take',

I seem to be a victim of this a lot too. I usually think it is because I haven't made myself clear or the normal drift of conversation, but next time I will take a closer look.

(11-24-2019 09:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  This may relate to your distinction on objectivity --- but the *degree* itself has lost the imprimatur of de facto expertise for me.
What I alluded to, and apparently lad never bothered to pick up on despite his worldliness, unassailable brilliance, and openness to ideas that might cut against a preset condition, is the literally hundreds of experts (via litigation) in which have steadfastly planted their flag on unassailably incorrect positions in my first hand experience. Many without being paid to do so. And with degrees that are far *more* extensive than the vaunted M(A)? from Columbia that the lad uses in his Somme-like defense of 'credentials'.
But since this falls in mere 'real world experience', and is not reported in the Grey Lady or WaPo, I am sure that lad will not accept that above statement either. Perhaps I should look up some asshat who wrote a scholarly Master's dissertation on the subject to reach the level that lad wishes to see and assuage him in that means. Or not.
I already brought this point up, but unfortunately the lad either did not see it or dismissed it with seeing it, as I now note that the position of disbelief of an instant recognition of the expertise of a degree is now termed 'pompous', and full of 'hubris'. The lad's dogged insistence on deeming my statements on the import of a degree (Or CV) (i.e. along with the NY Times, and the Washington Post, I assume these are the Holy Trinity of his sacrament) as such leads me to believe that lad has a rather bad case of infirmitus homo productus culmus. Since I do not have a Master's degree in Latin (the sin qua non of expertise mind you), nor am a physician, that may not be the proper terminology, and my humble apologies for even thinking I could string that term together.
But, this pompous, hubristic, intentionally ignorant proto-human has stretched its brain quite beyond its capacity in this, and feels an urgent need to eat some peanut butter butter (stretched so beyond its capacity it notes the double butter and in a mouth breating manner simply notes it without editing it out) and enter into a long sleep to recover.

Your understanding of expertise is probably rooted at least somewhat in Daubert principles, as is mine. Another misconception on the left is that advanced degrees confer expert status. I remember a left-leaning poster from Memphis in the Spin Room who once stated that, with regard to expertise regarding some issue under discussion, he had decided that he would just go get a master's degree and start passing himself off as an expert in the subject. I'm not aware that a master's degree in anything can, by itself, confer expert status.

I suspect Michel probably has some knowledge about the subject matter. It would be hard to write a master's thesis without at least knowing how to spell the words. But he also appears pretty clearly to lack objectivity, and his bias might disqualify him under Daubert, or at least prejudice his testimony.

decided to learn a bit about the impeachment of Johnson.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachmen...Office_Act

Interestingly enough, the following seems to indicate that history is repeating itself:

"Seven Republican senators were concerned that the proceedings had been manipulated to give a one-sided presentation of the evidence."

For those following along at home:

An opinion piece by Casey Michel is posted that suggest that Joe Biden's efforts to oust Shokin increased the potential for scrutiny of his son's dealings with Bursima, countering the conservative narrative that Joe Biden was acting to protect or support his son.

Instead of just saying they don't buy the article, folks suggest that liberal posters only believe this oped because Michel is on their side. Lad points out that Michel is highly credentialed when it comes to corruption in post-soviet states, OO and Tanq spend a couple days calling Lad a dummy for believing that degrees or experience in a topic should confer weight to this person's opinion.

It finally gets pointed out that OO and Tanq's line of attack on Lad suggests that no one can be an expert on anything. Michel is obviously an expert in this field. If you reject his opinion, that's your prerogative.

Tanq:

(11-24-2019 11:43 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  For those following along at home:

An opinion piece by Casey Michel is posted that suggest that Joe Biden's efforts to oust Shokin increased the potential for scrutiny of his son's dealings with Bursima, countering the conservative narrative that Joe Biden was acting to protect or support his son.

Instead of just saying they don't buy the article, folks suggest that liberal posters only believe this oped because Michel is on their side. Lad points out that Michel is highly credentialed when it comes to corruption in post-soviet states, OO and Tanq spend a couple days calling Lad a dummy for believing that degrees or experience in a topic should confer weight to this person's opinion.

It finally gets pointed out that OO and Tanq's line of attack on Lad suggests that no one can be an expert on anything. Michel is obviously an expert in this field. If you reject his opinion, that's your prerogative.

Actually Fountain, one can be an expert, and have expertise. A degree doesnt automatically confer that. Is that too hard for you to understand?

And your history is a tad lacking (surprise fing surprise)

The lad's response to someone else's comment about the author was a one liner --- I will paraphrase it here for you:

"The advanced degree tells me that". Period. End. Full stop.

Another poster in immediate response to that noted that advanced degrees arent necessarily a full end-all the someone having expertise, and used Paul Krugman, an economics PhD, as an example and alluded to his rather full history of very wrong statements on the economy.

And I agreed that a degree is not the sin qua non of expertise in a large general area. Whereas the lad started to, very specifically, mischaracterize the statement.

That culminated in lad calling me hubristic, and pompous. Coupled with him terming me 'intentionally ignorant' in another topic just recently (one that he ran away from after his comment, mind you), I told him to 'fk off twerp'. And would do so again. And yes, when explicitly called ignorant, pompous, and hubristic, all at the same time of being continuously mischaracterized in this last thread, is a tad aggravating.

*That* is the more full, and more complete version of your 4th grade attempt above. If you are going to state a history, at least be a little more thorough and a little bit more objective than that loaded attempt above. Seriously, use the full facts, not the Reader's Digest condensed books version. At least be a little more honest to the written history there, sparky.

But why let such facts get in the way of one of your dumbfk gif responses, I guess.....

But then again, you jump right into that current mischaracterization with the bolded, dont you? If you cannot understand that distinction, well, not my problem there sparkles.

Finally, why dont you try this one for size, since the lad wont answer it.

I have a JD, a doctorate level degree in law. Accordingly, I should be considered an expert, or have expertise, in tax implications of the ownership of foreign-based entities that have interests in gambling in Indian reservations. A simple yes or no should suffice, Fountain.

I look forward to the yes or no answer to the question I posed above. But knowing you, and knowing the lad, I am sure that it will never be answered.

I would urge you to be a little more honest in your characterizations, but I am coming to the conclusion that you two are fundamentally unable to do so. Funny that.

Have a wonderful day, gif-boy.

(11-24-2019 11:43 AM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  It finally gets pointed out that OO and Tanq's line of attack on Lad suggests that no one can be an expert on anything. Michel is obviously an expert in this field. If you reject his opinion, that's your prerogative.

No, what what OO and Tanq are clearly suggesting is that one can be an expert, but that doesn't make Michel one. And his paper trail suggests that anything he writes comes with a heavy far-leftist slant, so he's not an objective expert, and that goes to credibility and reliability.

Michel's self-authored bio sketch shows the date of his undergrad degree as 2010, albeit from a fine institution. Since then, my math says he has less than 10 years of experience, getting a master's degree from another fine institution, focusing on a specific area, and writing about that particular area, again apparently with a strong leftist bias based upon the titles of his writings and the publications where those writings have appeared. And I know graduates of both those fine institutions who don't have sense to come in out of the rain.

He has degrees and has written about things, not done things. That makes him an expert in the eyes of academia. In the real world, what counts for expertise is experience actually doing things, and Michel does not stack up well against that standard.

I guess all the lawyers are ok hiring people who don’t pass the bar or have a law degree, because having either of those documents means jack **** about whether or not you have the expertise to practice law.

Again, never quibbled that having expertise doesn’t mean you are always correct about a topic.

I've been asking for like 3 days, what should Mr. Michel have done differently to prove himself an expert?

If you want to reject his opinion on the grounds that it comes from a source you consider biased, that's fine.

His degrees and institutional affiliations put this topic squarely in his wheelhouse. You've expended all this energy to say over and over degrees do not necessarily confer expertise. Is there reason to believe they do not confer expertise in this case?

(11-24-2019 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have a JD, a doctorate level degree in law. Accordingly, I should be considered an expert, or have expertise, in tax implications of the ownership of foreign-based entities that have interests in gambling in Indian reservations. A simple yes or no should suffice, Fountain.

If you have experience practicing law in that area, or are on a council that discusses those very topics, yes.

Casey Michel has spent what appears to be his entire post-undergrad career visiting, reporting on, and writing academically about kleptocracy and corruption in post-soviet states. He is on the advisory council for the Hudson Institute's Kleptocracy Initiative.

(11-24-2019 12:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have a JD, a doctorate level degree in law. Accordingly, I should be considered an expert, or have expertise, in tax implications of the ownership of foreign-based entities that have interests in gambling in Indian reservations. A simple yes or no should suffice, Fountain.

If you have experience practicing law in that area, or are on a council that discusses those very topics, yes.

Casey Michel has spent what appears to be his entire post-undergrad career visiting, reporting on, and writing academically about kleptocracy and corruption in post-soviet states. He is on the advisory council for the Hudson Institute's Kleptocracy Initiative.

That wasnt the question, was it?

Nor is the topic you follow up with the topic that I was talking about, is it?

Good grief. It is a simple as fk question, yet you cannot answer it. Amazing.

Dance that cha cha cha there.

(11-24-2019 12:28 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  I guess all the lawyers are ok hiring people who don’t pass the bar or have a law degree, because having either of those documents means jack **** about whether or not you have the expertise to practice law.

Cant seemingly answer a simple as **** question. Good for you. A simple yes of fking no question, as put forth above. Should be simple to answer.

Quote:Again, never quibbled that having expertise doesn’t mean you are always correct about a topic.

I am talking about your comment that relates to the idea that an advanced degree is sin qua non of expertise. Not the correctness of an opinion. The one that uyou keep driving at, the one that I have said 'the presence of a degree may or may not indicate expertise.' You know, *that* topic. Keep on topic son.

oh my god. Michel's master's thesis literally mentions John Solomon as a shill for whitewashing Russian and post-soviet kleptocracies.

Who is out here working with Guiliani to push conspiracies about Ukraine that benefit Russia and post-soviet kleptocracies that are still under Russia's sphere of influence?

John Solomon

What would Michel have to do to be considered an expert in this case? His research is at the heart of this mess.

(11-24-2019 12:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 12:50 PM)Fountains of Wayne Graham Wrote:  

(11-24-2019 11:52 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have a JD, a doctorate level degree in law. Accordingly, I should be considered an expert, or have expertise, in tax implications of the ownership of foreign-based entities that have interests in gambling in Indian reservations. A simple yes or no should suffice, Fountain.

If you have experience practicing law in that area, or are on a council that discusses those very topics, yes.

Casey Michel has spent what appears to be his entire post-undergrad career visiting, reporting on, and writing academically about kleptocracy and corruption in post-soviet states. He is on the advisory council for the Hudson Institute's Kleptocracy Initiative.

That wasnt the question, was it?

Nor is the topic you follow up with the topic that I was talking about, is it?

Good grief. It is a simple as fk question, yet you cannot answer it. Amazing.

Dance that cha cha cha there.

Your question draws a false equivalence.