My purpose wasn't to criticize your choice of words. It's true that he was indeed an amateur and I agree that it does convey something special about him.

I think this is what made his insights into the Laozi so refreshing. Waley wasn't an expert, at least not in the accademic sense. He didn't necessarily have an ax to grind or a particular point of view to be defended against all comers. Reading his essays, I got the impression that he was something of a well-informed outsider, electing to base his discussion more on the texts before him than on what he'd heard others say about them.

A fresh approach is especially welcome when discussing the evolution of Chinese thought. Too often, the history of Chinese philosophy is based more on cultural tradition than established fact.