Originally Posted by
greentips
I agree in part with you and disagree in part. I am a qualified expert in radiologic physics according to the government. I have some knowledge in this area and am considered authoritative. I have considerable knowledge, but not authoritative knowledge of small segments of the law. However, I could, if I were of a mind, assert, in a knowledgeable fashion, about that which I know naught. I might get away with it too, if I had enough superficial knowledge...that is until a real expert (in this case a trained lawyer) comes along. Which is why we pay real lawyers for real opinions.
I am having a little trouble interpreting the first segment of your post. It seems you are stating you are a qualified expert with 'some knowledge in this area', so how is this then authoritive? Did you mean e.g. some considerable knowledge, which would make more sense?
If you are asserting in a knowledgeable fashion, it is unlikely that you know 'naught' although granted you could be wrong. The devil will be in the detail and their is plenty of it in the post of ESpen36 that I referred to. There are different areas of law, again granted, a lot of undrlying priniple will surely apply but the devil is again in the detail and that is why we pay specialist lawyers for an opinion. Corporate, International, criminal, matriamonial, personal inury, shipping, tax, Industrial relations, libel, the list is endless and includes Immigration. It's a particular specialism. I think this is less about how much he actually knows and more about his unwillingness to answer questions from the official or allow him to challenge anything he has written on his card. He would prefer if the official simply believed him at face value and let him pass without any interaction
Originally Posted by
greentips
I agree in part with you and disagree in part. I am a qualified expert in radiologic physics according to the government. I have some knowledge in this area and am considered authoritative. I have considerable knowledge, but not authoritative knowledge of small segments of the law. However, I could, if I were of a mind, assert, in a knowledgeable fashion, about that which I know naught. I might get away with it too, if I had enough superficial knowledge...that is until a real expert (in this case a trained lawyer) comes along. Which is why we pay real lawyers for real opinions.
I am having a little trouble interpreting the first segment of your post. It seems you are stating you are a qualified expert with 'some knowledge in this area', so how is this then authoritative? Did you mean e.g. some considerable knowledge, which would make more sense?
If you are asserting in a knowledgeable fashion, it is unlikely that you know 'naught' although granted you could be wrong. The devil will be in the detail and there is plenty of it in the post of ESpen36 that I referred to. There are different areas of law, again granted, a lot of underlying priniples will surely apply but the devil is again in the detail and that is why we pay specialist lawyers for an opinion. Corporate, International, criminal, matriamonial, personal inury, maritime, tax, regulatory, Industrial relations, libel, the list is endless and includes Immigration. It's a particular specialism. I think this is less about how much he actually knows and more about his unwillingness to answer questions from the official or allow him to challenge anything he has written on his card. He would prefer if the official simply believed him at face value and let him pass without any interaction. I am not sure most would support this as a good idea.