"Rob" wrote in message
om...
Jim Lesurf wrote:

Sorry, Rob, but do you think such a "Straw Man" debating response is
likely
to make others accept what you were saying? Are you trying to explain
your
views, or just 'win an argument'?


It's perfectly aligned, with a touch of drama.

Nope, it was a straw-man argument, pure and simple. You set up a strawman -
someone who is "dazzled" by qualifications (which is about as far removed
from my own POV as you can get) - simply so that you can knock it down.

I wouldn't for one moment assume David is uncritically accepting of a
'qualified person' in all circumstances. Just more than healthy.

Which again shows that you are reading what you want (or expect) to read
from my posts, rather than what I have written.

In no way am I "dazzled" by qualifications. I joined in this thread because
I do not believe that there are masses of unqualified (and thus untrained,
because training leads to qualifications) scientists and engineers out there
who can do science and engineering better than the people who have taken the
trouble to get a bit of education first. Which was more-or-less the original
claim.

In the field I now discover (at long last!) you have been talking about it
may very well be true that there are a lot of unqualified people who can do
the job better than the qualified. But this is an audio ng, and housing
policy seems rather off-topic.

David.