In my opinion, valarauca's comment is the correct place to start looking at the context, here. V. started the conversation in a way that could easily be constr

In my opinion, valarauca's comment is the correct place to start looking at the context, here. V. started the conversation in a way that could easily be construed as an effort to discredit Thunderf00t. To me, Computerex seems to simply be saying "Thunderf00t has sufficient general knowledge of science to make his debunking videos worthy of watching". You mention 'special standing', which suggests an 'all or nothing' approach to categorizing people's status and knowledge, rather than a more reality-accommodating recognition that expertise and knowledge are a matters of degree. Mdorazio did not state what you say they did, they instead asked a leading question in which words were placed in another person's mouth. Further, Mdorazio would be incorrect to state that "from the perspective of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics, he is in fact an average Joe on the street." because the average Joe on the street, relatively speaking, is not as equipped as Thunderf00t to understand issues of mechanical engineering and fluid dynamics. I'm not saying that Thunderf00t is or is not properly equipped to make each criticism, just pointing out the problem with 'all or nothing' style thinking here. You would be right to question whether Thunderf00t has sufficiently advanced and detailed knowledge to make each and every one of the criticisms that he makes, but this would depend on the specific criticism and the specifics of Thunderf00ts knowledge. As it happens, not even having a PhD in fluid mechanics would guarantee that the critic has the relevant knowledge, nor is thinking through the problem correctly.