I never assume any of us are speaking from knowledge.

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
I never assume any of us are speaking from knowledge.

Yes, but sometimes there are those who fail to make it clear. Not you, of course, but those.

Let's do this.

It is rare that anyone here is speaking from personal knowledge when we are talking about current events, politics, and many other things.

It's a discussion board -- there is no need for footnotes or disclaimers or citations about the basis for one's statements or opinions. I mean, come on.

So. If someone has inside information or personal knowledge, they can say so explicitly if they want. Otherwise, let's operate on the assumption that this is just a group of friends discussing things that are of interest.

Maybe this approach will cut down on pointless arguments about nonsense.

Sound good?

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Let's do this.

It is rare that anyone here is speaking from personal knowledge when we are talking about current events, politics, and many other things.

It's a discussion board -- there is no need for footnotes or disclaimers or citations about the basis for one's statements or opinions. I mean, come on.

So. If someone has inside information or personal knowledge, they can say so explicitly if they want. Otherwise, let's operate on the assumption that this is just a group of friends discussing things that are of interest.

Maybe this approach will cut down on pointless arguments about nonsense.

Sound good?

I prefer things to be explicit, when someone has made a claim to a level of professional expertise in a particular field.

Really? People here are claiming professional expertise in subjects we commonly talk about? Like politics, fashion, movies, medicine, parenting, entertainment, sports, literature, paint colors, travel, international affairs, science . . .

I guess I missed those threads.

OK, let’s be “explicit” about who is professing to be an expert. How about unless someone in the group declares that they are an expert, we will assume that they are speaking as a layperson?

I am glad we have finally clarified this. It will avoid a lot of pointless argument . . .

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Really? People here are claiming professional expertise in subjects we commonly talk about? Like politics, fashion, movies, medicine, parenting, entertainment, sports, literature, paint colors, travel, international affairs, science . . .

I guess I missed those threads.

OK, let’s be “explicit” about who is professing to be an expert. How about unless someone in the group declares that they are an expert, we will assume that they are speaking as a layperson?

I am glad we have finally clarified this. It will avoid a lot of pointless argument . . .

You’ve proclaimed yourself an expert in parts of the legal field. Maybe we could just start there. However, if you’d like to suggest now that you’re just a lay person, I won’t object.

Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

But if you like I will cheerfully let you know in advance whenever I am about to provide expert legal advice here on WTF. If I don't make such a declaration, you can have as your default that I'm just discussing things on a discussion board.

Sound OK?

quote:

Originally posted by Cindysphinx:
Sorry, I don't know what you're talking about.

But if you like I will cheerfully let you know in advance whenever I am about to provide expert legal advice here on WTF. If I don't make such a declaration, you can have as your default that I'm just discussing things on a discussion board.

Sound OK?

Seriously?

I’ll give one obvious example, even thought it’s hardly the only one.

You claimed special professional expertise about some aspects of automotive litigation. I didn’t pay attention to the details because, well, you know.

Let me rephrase your question, Jon.

Does the United States government have the lawful right to refuse to allow a United States citizen to enter the country?

Imagine, for a moment, a country that is ruled by an oppressive regime. And yet our government still supports that regime. It's unimaginable, but follow along for a moment. And now let's imagine that the President, in order to support that oppressive regime, declares that anyone who supports regime change in that country is an enemy of the state. Again, it's unimaginable that the President would announce that a group of people are enemies of the state, but indulge me. And further imagine that the President declares that anyone who supports regime change in that country is a terrorist, because the ruler has declared that he/she is ruler for life.

A United States citizen goes to that country and meets with the opposition, perhaps even supports the opposition. And then is told that he/she may not return to the United States, because the United States government has decided that he/she is a terrorist. Without a trial. Without due process. The President has reached that conclusion, and has instructed CBP to refuse the citizen entry.

Are you OK with that? Should anyone be OK with that?

United States citizens are entitled to due process. It's a constitutional right.
Due process requires a trial.

This woman is willing to submit to a trial.

And, with all due respect, this isn't "today's question". We don't take a poll on constitutional rights. People are entitled to those rights even if the person involved is deeply unpopular, even hated.

Look again, you didn’t understand the meme.

Quirt,

I think you are somewhat confused around concepts like "expert," "expertise," "experience," and "knowledge.

For example:

I have experience in tennis, and likely have more experience with it than anyone here.

I have knowledge about tennis because I follow it closely and play the sport regularly and take instruction.

I have expertise in many aspects of league tennis based on being a captain, player, and grievance committee rep.

Am I an "expert" in tennis? Of course not. I don't know much about equipment, I have never coached, I have never played professionally.

That is why I think all of us here can assume that when someone is discussing something on this board, our default should be that they are NOT speaking as an "expert" unless they claim this to be so. Instead, they are speaking from knowledge and experience, usually.

I do not understand why you insist on demanding something more. In any event, it doesn't matter. You can just assume that no one here is speaking as an "expert" unless they tell you they are.

Hopefully, this will cut down on the need to cross-examine people on their status as an "expert."

I, for one, welcome this change in our collective expectations.

PS: Regarding my "professional expertise" around automotive litigation . . . yes, I handled some product liability appeals back when I did commercial litigation. I therefore know about it, and I would guess I know more about it than anyone else here. I know a lot about a lot of things, actually, based on my experience, professional and otherwise. Would I say I am therefore an "expert" in automotive litigation? Not anymore, and not beyond the matters I handled (e.g. fuel systems, transmissions, restraints). Hope that helps . . .

You continue to try to establish standards for other people's behavior. Maybe you should worry more about your own, there's plenty to worry about there. Just a suggestion.

As far as the "expert" thing goes, you may want to claim that it's an absolute ... you either are or aren't ... but, as far as this (or any discussion board) goes, it isn't. As far as a discussion board goes, an expert is a person who knows more about a particular subject than others, and who can offer valuable insights based on their experience. Steve Miller, for example, is a person who is an expert (under this definition, and perhaps under yours), and whose expertise is both valued and sought by others.

And this definition is important, because there are those who choose to use their self-professed greater experience in a particular area to claim that their opinion and/or knowledge is superior to those of anyone else who they perceive to have less experience and/or knowledge in that area. If you think about it really hard, you might be able to imagine people who have done that here.

And that is why, when one of those people claims, oh, let's just use a hypothetical, to "have experience in tennis, and likely have more experience with it than anyone here", it's important to know exactly what experience they are talking about, so that one can know whether they actually know more, or whether they're just blowing smoke out of their a$$.

quote:

Originally posted by QuirtEvans:

quote:

Originally posted by Piano*Dad:
She adopted Syria. Can she not stay there?

Perhaps the answer is she was admitted to Syria as a U.S. citizen. I don't know what you mean by "adopted Syria", and I don't know what actions she took that demonstrate that she "adopted Syria". A few more questions:

1. Was she a U.S. citizen?

2. If not, how did she get a passport?

3. If she was a U.S. citizen, did she ever renounce that citizenship? (Note: joining an organization, even a terrorist organization, is not a renunciation of citizenship.)

4. Did she apply for citizenship, and was she granted citizenship, in Syria?

As I have said, I don't have a problem with admitting her into the U.S. and then charging her with treason ... assuming she was a U.S. citizen. My issue is that the Trump Administration's attitude seems to be, "We don't like you or what you did, so you aren't welcome", without regard to her citizenship. That's not right. U.S. citizens have a right to return home. And then they can be charged with a crime, if they've committed a crime. If she's a U.S. citizen, "go away" is the wrong answer.

Hear, hear.

quote:

Originally posted by pianojuggler:

quote:

Originally posted by Nina:
How/why does one get two US passports, and why is that relevant?

I don't know how it is relevant, but you can get a second passport by asking for one. Most of the people I work with have two because they travel a LOT, all over the world. Some countries take a couple weeks to issue a visa -- or a week if you pay them a large amount of money, plus at least a day each way for your passport to travel to their embassy and back. If you need to travel somewhere else that week, you need a second passport to use while you first one is being endorsed.

Also, there are some countries that will not issue you a visa or allow you to enter their country if you have been in certain other countries. Having two passports allows you to have one for travelling to Mushidonia, and a second one for countries that won't let you in if you've ever been to Mushidonia.

Interesting.