Experts on THR

[harpethriver]

444-good post. Nando-your last line says it best. Can we all agree that an expert is simply a person who really knows more about a given subject than you and I? And while we're at it let's give them the respect they deserve as such!! Let's make sure the experts who are kind enough to grace THR feel as though we appreciate them because if we don't they won't be back-and that's a loss we can't afford!

 

[RepublicanMan]

My daddy always told me not to listen to "experts" as most of them believe they know all there is to know and thus cease learning. Now I'll gladly listen to an "authority" on a given subject on the many occasions that I need advice about something. (except Glocks, I refuse to hear anything good about them since I don't need another "collection" to get started and the one I had soured me enough to keep my grudge)

 

[Mal H]

RepublicanMan - your daddy was right - to a point. Any self-proclaimed expert usually isn't. It's when many others, others who know enough on the "experts" area of expertise to make the claim, say that someone is an expert is when you should consider listening carefully to that person.

 

[telewinz]

Guns, Sex and money have no shortage of experts. You do not have to be nationally or internationally know to be an expert on the subject, it just provides "better" credentials, thats all. Many gun writers are know as Experts when in fact they were hired for their writing style and ability. They "copy" what popular opinion is and write about it. Its not black & white, its a gray area. A novice could read 3-4 good books on the M1 Garand, go out and shoot a few hundred rounds and he would be pretty much qualified as an expert. He can recite the facts and figures on demand (and understand) which is about all thats required. All the rest is opinion based. Gun experts IMHO are in fact a dime a dozen, whats wrong with that? Any high interest subject like war or guns is going to draw a crowd of informed people. Are their jerks out there? Yes but that should not deter someone from stating their "expert" opinion because their are also people out there willing to learn from their opinion. Besides, What gun poll was ever held that had 100% agreement? If you ran a poll on the best .45acp design ever made, how many would select the Colt 45ACP? Yet plenty of experts would disagree and could provide GOOD justification for thir beliefs. Gun shows are full of experts, thats how many make their living.

 

[Tim Burke]

Good post, 444.

The fact that everyone is entitled to their own opinion does not mean that every opinion is equally valid.

 

[Trebor]

I think there is a basic point that is being missed or misunderstood here.

It's pretty silly when someone who has no real knowledge of a subject argues with someone who is intimately involved with that topic on a personal basis.

The best example I can give is from a wargame convention I was at a few years ago. During one game a young guy in his 20's playing a Civil War game was passionately arguing a couple very specific rules points with the game master running the game. The player was not arguing anything about the historical basis of the game (like the use of artillery in the Civil War, etc), but was arguing about the specific interpertation of various rules. The Game Master, a guy in his 50s, was very patient as the player argued over the rules but finally lost it when the player said he knew he was right because he'd been playing with these rules for over a year! The GM finally lost it and said. "That's nice, but I wrote these rules 15 years ago and have been using them ever since."

The situation that arises on these boards isn't so much a legitimite question of "what makes an expert," as it is a refusal of some people to acknowledge that they might not know as much about what they are talking about as somone else in the discussion who is intimately involved in the issue. The recent Pat Rogers example is exactly what I mean.

One last example: Who knows more about the ins and outs of the retail gun trade, a knowledgable dealer who works with the rules every day or a guy who once "talked to a guy who'se brother is a ATF agent who said such and such..." Sometimes no matter what you tell them, the guys who are talking out of their @ss just won't admit it.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Rob Leatheam is a good role model and his credentials as an expert in the field of IPSC Shooting are verifiable and proven.

Being a good role model and having the credentials as an expert in your field are two different things.

I am a very casual acquaintance of Rob Leatham. His status in the world of shooting games is unparalleled, and he deserves all the acclaim he enjoys. However, without going into details, my personal knowledge of his behaviour in other areas of life means that I have to disagree with calling him a good role model.

 

[yayarx7]

I think that we are overlooking an important point. If an “expertâ€, or knowledgeable person or whatever we want to call them, chimes in on a subject they are probably the best equipped to answer, and some troll chimes in with a nasty post about it, shouldn’t the non-troll take the high road and blow it off as what it is, a troll trying to get a rise. I know that continuous disregard of ones thoughts, especially if one knows what one speaks of, can be a huge put off, but we all know how the internet works and how 95% of the folks online are full of poo. Trolls need to be ignored. Just my opinion, such as it is.

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

Now this kind of statement drives me around the bend.

Quote:

"I am a very casual acquaintance of Rob Leatham. His status in the world of shooting games is unparalleled, and he deserves all the acclaim he enjoys. However, without going into details, my personal knowledge of his behaviour in other areas of life means that I have to disagree with calling him a good role model."

If the person in question is not present to defend his reputation , then a statement such as this should not even be posted. I have been the victim of the "whisper..Whisper..or I have heared or I know" brigade and I find the saying "If you can't say anything good about a person you should stay silent" should be applied.

The media has proven that people will believe unfounded allegations and today's rumour will become tomorrows fact and once it is believed to be such. No display fo the truth will convince the majority otherwise.

If you have the documentation to prove the allegation, post it, but just to infer it, that is wrong in my opinion.

Debate the persons style of shooting, choice of weapon or public statements or political ones, otherwise it should be left alone.

This is one of the reasons I will abandon a board, I am not here to listen to the bashing/smearing of a persons reputation, but to interact with others about the fine art of shooting and other fundamentals.

If information comes to light and bears close scrutiny...GO FOR IT...otherwise....

 

[444]

Everybody has their own opinion of what is right and wrong, good and evil, acceptable behavior etc. True, there are givens that have been accepted by pretty much everyone for centuries or more, but other things are much more grey. The problem with making veiled statments about someone elses character is that everyone assumes the worst. Again, we all have our own ideas of what would make someone a bad role model and since we have no specifics, we assume he meets our own criteria when in fact it may be something that we don't care about at all. If a guy goes out and gets roaring drunk every Saturday night, some people would be appalled by it. Other wouldn't care. If some guy smokes pot, some people would have him put in irons, others wouldn't care at all. If a guy chases women all the time, some would have him sterilized, others wouldn't care in the least.
I for one don't care if the person mentioned is a role model or not. I would appreciate his input on the subject of this forum: guns, shooting, handloading etc.

This ties in with a very popular current news story. When it comes to election to the baseball hall of fame I don't care what Pete Rose did other than the fact that he was certainly one of the greatest baseball players of all time. His personal life may have been a mess, but on the field as a player he was not only hall of fame material but would be one of the best players in the hall of fame regardless of era. It is the BASEBALL hall of fame not the role model hall of fame. I am sure plenty of dirt could be dug up about a lot of members of the hall, but I don't see why you would want to.

 

[AZLibertarian]

Shaughn,
Didn't mean to "drive you round the bend", but I have my reasons for my feelings about Rob Leatham. If Rob were here, and wanted to get into this, I'd be happy to discuss it with him. But since he's not, I won't go into further detail.

My point was in response to another's view that Rob is a good role model, and that he shoots well. As I said, the two issues are completely seperate.

I'm not making a direct parallel here, but two years ago, many who follow basketball thought Kobe Bryant was a good role model--both on the court and off. Today, that opinion for many has changed. He's still a great basketball player...no one can take that away from him. But his (alleged) off-court behavior has brought him down a peg. I'm betting he's not signing as many autographs as he once did.

I probably didn't make my point clearly enough. I think that the public's acceptance of an expert's achievements in his field are often transferred to every area of his life. Many of us believe that Kobe Bryant isn't a model husband. Jay Leno may be a great comedian/emcee, but is he a good Dad? I don't know--any more than whether he pays his taxes. I guess I see being a "good role model" as going much further than any success one might get in a professional endeavor, that it would be hard to give that label to someone that is known only for their professional successes.

 

[Shaughn Leayme]

AZLibertarian,

Thanks for the qualification.

I have in the past had to suffer from the inference of wrongdoing and conduct unbecoming and it is a stigma that can be almost impossible to shake off and I know for a fact in my situation that I was totally clean and above board and had the documentation and witnesses to prove it, but my reputation was shredded and the atmosphere was such that a new line of work was the perscribed course.

Pardon, the shot across the bows as it is still a touchy subject.

 

[BluesBear]

I agree that the acomplishments of an entertainer should be kept separate from their personal life.

Actors and Sports figures are just entertainers.


And just for the record. Jay Leno has no children.

 

[Sylvilagus Aquaticus]

I'd like to think that, if I have a question or a problem, that by gathering all the information I need from sources I respect, trust, and take the time to consult I can make my own conclusion to the problem at hand.

So far it has worked out ok for me, and I'm starting to be considered old in some circles.

I consider some of those sources 'expert', if not knowledgeable. If they know more than I do, that is the primary criteria. Sometimes I just like to hear opinions so that I can possibly more closely define my own or be enlightened on new subjects.

I figure it's my job to make the distinction on what I consider to be an 'expert source'.

Regards,
Rabbit.

 

[Majic]

The points recently made is part of what I was saying earlier in the thread. We may or may not be who we say we are over the internet. Only a very few people would actually know as this is read world wide. I really don't care if you are well known in your field or just an accomplished reader who knows to recites common accepted facts. The facts you put forth in your statements are the only things I consider. I'm not impressed by how you arrived at them and will never just accept them just because you say so. Fame and glory is one thing, but your path in the field doesn't necessarily mean that's the only route. Life is full of side roads that will lead you to the same destination. If an knowledgeable person says that to accomplish something then this is the way then that's his/her own personal opinion. Someone else may have an alternative, but does that makes them wrong? We are taught to question things for which we don't fully understand, but on the other hand we can offer alternatives that the knowledgeable person have omitted, for what ever reasons (be it unknown to them or they find it more difficult, or it's just plain wrong), and the knowledgeable person can comment on their experience on it or sit back and absorb new information to them. There's room for growth in everyone. To just accept something from someone, who you really don't know or even know that this is in fact that person, while having doubts and not seeking clarification for yourself is foolish.
In summary I dont' really care who you say you are, only that what you say on the subject has any relevancy. If I don't understand then I will question for me personally to learn. The intelligent will explain their thoughts. If I was wrong then I have learned something, but if I was just looking at it from a different perspective and arrive at the same conclusion then the intelligent would accept that as something they knew but chose to omit or have learned an alternative themselves. How you arrived at your opinions, be it personal experience or just facts gathering, means nothing. The word "expert" is overrated and with the fallacies of human nature it gets abused sometimes as egos enter the picture.

Your acceptence of someone as an expert and and their thoughts on a subject shouldn't mean that everyone else should do the same. We are all different and have our faults. That is the purpose of discussions, to express one's ideas. What we gain from the discussion is totally up to the individual.

 

[444]

If there is a discussion, we can all learn. If it is just a pissing contest, then it is a waste of time.
As was repeated over and over again in this thread, the idea isn't to accept was anyone says without question. Let me repeat that again, the idea isn't to accept what someone says without question. Once again, the idea isn't to accept what someone says without question. The idea is to be nice, have some class, ask all the questions you want in a non-confrontational manner. Treat others as you would if you met them in person. Treat others as you would like to be treated yourself.
We can flex our muscles all we want on the internet, but 99.9% of us would be nice in person if we were questioning a stranger. If a guy walked into the local gunstore and a question came up, and he answered it we wouldn't yell out that he was full of crap and make idle threats to him. We may question him, but it would be done in a way so that we didn't look like an ???, and in a way that didn't get us punched in the nose. Same should be true on the internet.
And before someone else posts that we shouldn't just accept what someone says without question, we all know that. Just question with class, don't feel like you have to back everyone into a corner. If you can be adult about this, everyone can have a good time and everyone can learn. Otherwise we can start yet another thread asking for pictures of bone stock guns that look just like every other model of that same gun that anyone can see in a catalog.

 

[Tim Burke]

Majic writes:

I really don't care if you are well known in your field or just an accomplished reader who knows to recites common accepted facts. The facts you put forth in your statements are the only things I consider.

So you aren't looking for knowledge, but the ability for someone to explain something to you? We can sit around all day and debate how many teeth a horse has, and come up with dandy explanations for why each of our opinions is right. If we really want to know how many teeth the horse has, we should count them. And when some guy walks in and says, "I've just counted them, the horse has 26 teeth" it's time to quit debating the issue.
It's entirely possible to put together a perfectly logical, rational sounding argument that leads one to the wrong conclusion. Better to have an expert tell you up front the correct conclusion. If you want to question him about how he arrived at his conclusion, that might be OK. But if you say, "what do you mean the horse has 26 teeth?" after he comes in and tells you that he has just counted them, don't be surprised if he concludes that further discussion with you is a waste of time.

 

[wingman]

If it is just a pissing contest, then it is a waste of time.

True, on boards such as this it seems we have a large number of "high school
debating team" failures and it becomes a matter of winning more then learning.:banghead:

 

[Highland Ranger]

I vote for civil but open discourse. That's the point of an (anon) web forum no?

And the civility should be maintained for technical AND political topics.

Some folks here seem to think that if a 2A or gun rights discussion comes up, they have the right to write rabid responses . . .

 

[Tamara]

they have the right to write rabid responses . . .

Amazing alliteration! Attaboy!

 

[NavajoNPaleFace]

I know one thing for sure.

I'm not much of an expert on anything as I'm constantly running into people who know things that I don't.

Life experiences are just that. We have knowledge of what WE experience whereas someone else my have experienced things some of us have not.

I figure it this way: the day I die I will still have managed to learn something new, lol.

 

[TechBrute]

All I have to say is that Pat Rogers seems to be a man of few words. When he bothers to post something, I'm absolutely positive that it's something that he is intimately knowledgable about. When he posts, I STFDASTFU so I can listen intently.

Tam, I'm right behind you on the 15 year olds with the silly handles spouting nonsense.

Edited to add:

When I originally made this post I had no idea about the issue that sparked this thread. I've since figured it out and I am beside myself. What 444 said in the other thread was right on: some of us pay thousands of dollars for a few days worth of instruction from Pat and others like him. I think that someone pretty much singlehandedly lost us the ability to glean some free info from him in the comfort of our own homes on this board. Luckily, Pat can still be found as the moderator of the Force Recon board of TF.

 

[aerod1]

444, I totally agree. One reason I come to these boards is to learn from those whom are more knowledgeable than I. I consider myself a "student of the gun", so if one of the experts on this forum wants to shed some light on a subject, I am content to learn and not criticize.

Jim Hall

 

[raz-0]

Well, I agree with the basic underlying premis that the highroad is a place where politness and good behavior are strongly encouraged. I like the fact that people here are encouraged to not be jerks.

however it cuts both ways. I've been on here and involved in discussions where someone has a lot of experience in a given field, and is willing to share their advice. But then again, there's a number of people who put in the years and know a lot of stuff, but just aren't keeping to the not being a jerk guidelines themselves.

Sure, a good gunsmith might know what works, but they tell a bunch of curious and smart folks what works, then they really should expect a couple people to ask why it works, or why doing it that way is better than doign it another way. And they shouldn't take that to mean they are being accused of being wrong.

Never did like any of the teachers that discouraged the asking of questions anymore than I liked those that insist they know how tings are in the face of clearly being wrong. Both hamper the learning process.

 

[mec]

Alwasy good to double check everything.

There is a recognized writer- expert who I viewed as a very credible source of information on just about anything handgun related. Then he wrote an article to the effect that all primer cups are the same and there are no hard or soft primers. Now I have to re-examine everything else he has written.