It seems that there's a crux to the arguments and attacks that have arose here lately between the verbose outsider and our plucky editor-in-chief.
Let me detail this more specifically:
Practical working knowledge of modern evolving systems not necessarily covered by a regulatory body (or one that has not caught up to all current technology or is unaware of existing standards set by a different industry) versus the proprietary and progress averse regulatory bodies that determine who is "certified."
Is "legitimacy" only determined by the alphabet soup of acronyms that lord over fees and antiquated standards? Is there no room for more flexible models of knowledge and continued education to exist?
Honovich has stated CLEARLY that he does not care about ANSI certifications of his courses and yet Zwirn considers the snub as a non-answer...(rather than a negative one?)
Regardless, while there are laws and these regulatory bodies regularly find their way into influencing these laws (whether for legitimate reasons or for monetary gain), are these standards truly "relevant" in the practical sense? Is an upheaval necessary in the industry? Where does the authority and responsibility to certify lie?
Perhaps rather than debating knowledge for fields that the two individuals in question have very little intersect in, why not debate something that is actually up for debate. Do we need to answer to the suit and tie committee or do the jeans and work-boots need to be the ones making the rules? Git'er done or CYA with a mountain of paperwork? Who truly defines this industry?