> Funny how your professional opinion is all over
> this amateur board—
My interest in the notion of a lost episode in human history is entirely amateur.
I partly retired early because I had the means to do so.
I still work part time in the Arts.
Engineering is now a hobby .
Bikes and fast Italian cars.
and client confidentiality in
> providing information privately is not the same as
> being a cited expert in a published work.
The relationship between a professional and a client is entirely the business of those concerned.
If Scott chose to cite his consultant then that is his concern.
> As a potential buyer and reader, I have the same
> right as other buyers and readers to know who the
> “experts” are whose opinions I’m expected to
> accept on the strength of their “expertise”,
> as a minimum precondition of establishing their
> bona fides.
Scott stated that his consultant was an "art expert". Which means a person highly qualified in Art.
For a cited “expert” to claim
> client confidentiality in such a case is
> ludicrous: an “expert” who’s as much use as
> a chocolate teapot (as clearly you are).
I'm not sure what a chocolate teapot is.
I'm a former engineer and military veteran with a BA and MA in Art. No more, no less
> If it’s none of my damn’ business as a
> reader—as one of those the book is intended to
> persuade—then it’s none of the damn’
> business of any and all of the other readers.
> Just like I said: our damn’ business.
Scott cited an "art expert". A person highly qualified in the arts. Which I guess would be a Masters. MA in Art and Design.
Who is the book intended to persuade? It's a published informed opinion of Scott Creighton.
You don't have to be persuaded to agree with it. By all means disagree with it.
I disagree with most books to a greater or lesser extent.
Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 26-Jun-16 02:28 by Jon Ellison.