No, it really isn't. If someone is an expert in some field then that is good context to have.
If there was something that you disagreed with in that post you should have engaged with that like others did instead of trying to discredit the poster based on your personal idea of what is an accounts credibility status.
Personally, orbital-decay's reasoning was more sound and expansive than master_crab's. The source drop that provided no context was a red flag in my eyes combined with the direct countering without sound reasoning. I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert.
Again, I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies, which could be viewed as "discrediting", but I didn't want to divulge those opinions in the first place because it's distracting.
- EDIT because post limit -
> @jacquesm: The irony.
Not really. I initially didn't want to share it, that paragraph was my personal opinion and the last sentence of the paragraph was me saying I didn't want to share it, but I had to in later replies because of the fuss.
You left out the context of:
> I simply wanted to caution others without attacking the GP. I did later have to expand on why I was cautioning in replies.
> I did NOT want to share my personal reasoning though as I'm not an expert.
The irony.
I'm not claiming to be anything.
> Why should they not?
There's no rule against it, it's just a red flag
> But it gives context.
Not really anymore than going into the details of explosives.
> That's your opinion.
Yes it's my opinion, I never claimed it as fact. That's why I used "seemed".