> eyeofhorus33 Wrote:
> > The common understanding of an "expert" in any
> > field is of an individual who is recognised by
> > others in their profession, working in the
> > as an authority on a particular aspect of the
> > subject. It is commonplace for an "expert" to
> > published or lectured widely on their
> > aspect of that subject.
Jon Ellison wrote:
> Scott recognised me as an expert in the
> field of art in particular painting. The
> application of paint.
Obviously, it has now been established that John Snape posts here as Jon Ellison.
Potential readers of GPH wishing to test the reliability of the author's evidence would have legitimate grounds for enquiring further into the qualifications of anyone cited by the author as an expert. However, you state that you have degrees in art (B.A. hons, M.A. dist.) and FRSA. You are also a professional photographer.
You therefore have a specialist knowledge of photography and art (as you've shown in some previous posts): at any rate, more than the average person.
Presumably, it will have to be left to GPH readers to decide whether this specialist knowledge provides sufficient support for Mr. Creighton's theories.
But this leads on to a slightly different question. There might also be something of a semantic problem here, in that there can sometimes be confusion between the terms "specialist" and "expert." Although Mr. Creighton's blurb says "expert," does it mean "specialist" ... ?