For a critique to have value it needs to reveal something new to the person receiving it. An experienced photographer, an artist in another field, an art historian, an ordinary person, or an innocent child could all reveal something new. But in all likelihood, the knowledgeable person is more likely to reveal something new because they have a greater breadth of experience to draw on.
You have chosen to critique my work on two grounds. Your first critique was an emotional statement that my pictures do nothing for you. Fine. I accept that. I've had worse comments from people (such as when a porn aggregator linked to my web site and I had 12,000 visitors in one weekend - not surprisingly they were mostly disappointed with the pictures I show - and some of them couldn't handle that disappointment very well).
But your second critique was about technique and process - you've talked about camera kit, lighting, backdrops, platinum printing, posing, composition, etc. I'm sorry, but if you're going to set yourself up as someone I should listen to about these things then you have to demonstrate you know something about the subject. If you cannot or will not do this then you are no better than those college lecturers you derided in one of your posts.
The internet is full of armchair critics who use critiques as a way to puff up their egos and tell everyone how fantastic and important they are. I am coming to the conclusion that you are one of these people.
It's time to put up or shut up, Richard.