First one. No, I've never claimed that.
Second one. I do think I can identify those types of fallacious arguments and am happy to explain the reasoning why when I identify them.
Third one. I never claimed that either. I've said that if a source makes exaggerated claims about the "messenger's" expertise, you should demand evidence to substantiate the claim. Otherwise you should be more skeptical of the source as it may be attempting to set up appeal to authority claims which is fallacious reasoning. I'd be happy to move on to any specific claims of "the message", but no one who offers that source for evidence of their position feels the need to substantiate or concede the claim regarding the interviewee's breath of expertise. It's important to establish that point before addressing his individual claims. Not because they should be completely accepted or ignored based on the outcome, but because it provides context for the impartiality of the source and which claims from the expert actually like within his area of expertise.