# Arrogant Freeloading "Information" Seeking Asshats! **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [May 12, 2009, 12:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115 "2009-05-12T00:39:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2009, 11:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/181 "2009-05-12T23:52:51Z")
**not\_alice** Give it a rest, not even **Kimmy\_Gibbler** is taking your inane line of argument. ---
**Author:** ![Lemur866](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lemur866/32/434_2.png) [@Lemur866](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lemur866)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/182 "2009-05-13T00:00:31Z")
So let me get this straight, Mswas. You’re telling me that as a licensed massage therapist, there are certain things you wouldn’t do? Because those things would violate your professional ethics? So there are certain things you won’t do that are pretty obvious, like you won’t give your client a handjob during a massage. But it also turns out there are certain things you won’t do that aren’t obvious…like you won’t give sex advice while speaking as an LMT? Not only won’t you give handjobs, you won’t advise people on the best way to give handjobs? Because that might cause confusion among the public about the role of the massage therapist? Do I have that about right? Whoah. ---
**Author:** ![Tenebras](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/977dab/32.png) [@Tenebras](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Tenebras)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/183 "2009-05-13T00:02:49Z")
I think we’re all missing the forest for the trees here. The real question we should be asking ourselves is whether lawyers can give advice about the best way to give a handjob. ---
**Author:** ![Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/bb73d2/32.png) [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sleeps_With_Butterflies)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/184 "2009-05-13T00:04:56Z")
No, no. Lawyers don’t give handjobs… they fuck you. ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/185 "2009-05-13T00:06:03Z")
> [@Sleeps\_With\_Butterflies](#): > > No, no. Lawyers don’t give handjobs… they fuck you. Nice! 😛 I’m going to have to turn that into a Lawyers and Masseuses joke: What’s the difference between a Masseuse and a Lawyer? A Masseuse gives you a handjob while a lawyer just fucks you! ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/186 "2009-05-13T00:07:09Z")
> [@Lemur866](#): > > So let me get this straight, Mswas. You’re telling me that as a licensed massage therapist, there are certain things you wouldn’t do? Because those things would violate your professional ethics? > > So there are certain things you won’t do that are pretty obvious, like you won’t give your client a handjob during a massage. > > But it also turns out there are certain things you won’t do that aren’t obvious…like you won’t give sex advice while speaking as an LMT? Not only won’t you give handjobs, you won’t advise people on the best way to give handjobs? Because that might cause confusion among the public about the role of the massage therapist? > > Do I have that about right? > > Whoah. That part is less obvious? :dubious: Do you ask your Dentist about the best way to give a blow job? Am I being whooshed is this just a joke with terrible delivery? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/187 "2009-05-13T00:10:21Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > You are asking my ‘professional’ advice about sexy time, so you are inferring that _I_ am a whore. **Inferring** doesn’t mean what you think it means either. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/188 "2009-05-13T00:18:22Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > Are you serious? > > I can see why you’re not, or at least if you are, why you shouldn’t be. I didn’t get defensive I supported my original point. He didn’t ask about massage techniques at all, he asked about oils to enhance his sexual experience with his lady. > > If you want to know what kind of oil I use in my practice, Jojoba oil. Yes I do use words for a living, I use them to persuade (although IANAL) You are the one who is using words, important words to your case, improperly, because you either don’t know what they mean (despite being 6th grade vocabulary level) or because you think they sound important in a discussion with lawyers. They only make you look foolish really. And when you miss the point of Kimmy’s question six ways until Sunday, you can’t simply say you messed up, you take it out on me. And no, he didn’t ask you your advice on what oil YOU use, he asked what oil of a list you recommend HE use. Now you see how easy it is to misinterpret requests for professional advice on the internet? You do get that don’t you? ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/189 "2009-05-13T00:21:01Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > **not\_alice** Give it a rest, not even **Kimmy\_Gibbler** is taking your inane line of argument. Really? **Inane** doesn’t mean what you think it means either. ---
**Author:** ![not\_alice](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/not_alice/32/7283_2.png) [@not\_alice](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/not_alice)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/190 "2009-05-13T00:24:19Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > That part is less obvious? :dubious: > > Do you ask your Dentist about the best way to give a blow job? > > Am I being whooshed is this just a joke with terrible delivery? Why would it be obvious? If I ask you for ways to provide enjoyable and therapeutic touch to my new gf who happens to be paraplegic, you couldn’t tell me? ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/191 "2009-05-13T02:04:34Z")
> [@mswas](#): > > One useful bit of legal advice I learned from this thread is to never take legal advice from someone who doesn’t know the difference between a licensed medical profession and an illegal sex worker. 😃 ummmm…NO MORE QUESTIONS!! ---
**Author:** ![mswas](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e99b99/32.png) [@mswas](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mswas)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:14am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/192 "2009-05-13T02:14:54Z")
**not\_alice** You truly are a moron. You had good luck with prognosis now you’re pushing for the overkill. Now you’re following me around to other threads hate-crushing. Your little bit about trying to change the scope of practice of a massage therapist is yes, **inane**. –adjective 1. lacking sense, significance, or ideas; silly: inane questions. 2. empty; void. ---
**Author:** ![Stoid](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/stoid/32/272_2.png) [@Stoid](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Stoid)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/193 "2009-05-13T02:24:33Z")
> [@Jodi](#): > > Congratulations! Seriously. But let me also just mention that IMO given your tendency to drill down to the molecular level on one or two points instead of presenting a broad and more unified argument, ten volumes of Civ Pro esoterica may not be the greatest resource for you in particular. > > I’m not being bitchy, honest. Don’t over rely on an exhaustive resource just because you have it, is all I’m saying. I just lurve Witkin, and it’s so hard to lay hold of outside a library. I can send all of Bender’s P&P and other stuff to myself via email from the library for leisurely study, and my next door neighbor has some good CEB and Rutter guides…but Witkin…the elusive and delicious Witkin… Now if I could just lay hands on the Summary of Ca Law. I think I have found a good source for Evidence… I never see Cal Jur, though. But then, that’s a a hundred volumes or something like that. Contrary to the assumptions being made from what has been very deliberately truncated and incomplete information, my arguments and theories are very clear. I’m not obsessing on esoterica - but I don’t want to be tripped up by concepts that aren’t clear to me by assuming they don’t count. Like ultimate/evidence/legal conclusions. Especially since it turns out that a clear understanding of the difference was crucial in relation to her statement of decision and will be important in my appeal argument. It’s very strange the way people have assumed that since the beginning…that because I bring up a specific topic, it’s THE topic I think is the heart and soul of my case. No…it’s a topic I want to understand better, that’s all. Because it might make a difference. From one of my early organizing lists from last year: C. Research 1. Areas of law/topics a) Procedure (1) Appellate Generally i) Standards of Review (a) De Novo (b) Abuse of Discretion (c) Sufficiency of Evidence ii) Brief Writing (2) New Trial (3) Equity (4) Judicial Notice (5) Unclean Hands (6) Bifurcation (7) Judicial Bias & Disqualification (8) Judgment, Interlocutory (9) Operating Agreements, Contracts (10) Statutory Construction (11) Summary Judgment (12) Judgment on the Pleadings b) Law & Equity (1) Dissolution (2) Deadlock (3) Partition (4) Unlawful detainer i) demur ii) special appearance iii) jury trial (5) Attorney Fees i) common benefit (6) Receivership (7) Undertakings Some things turned out to be less of an issue or were resolved, and other things ahve emerged. But my goal since the beginning has been to take in all the information I can about every aspect of my case, both legally and procedurally. And when I run across something that I can’t figure out to my satisfaction, I have asked for information so I can understand it better. I’ve been steeped in evidence study recently, and the whole hearsay thing? holy mother of god. I asked my lawyer pal next door if hearsay and the exceptions filled up an entire year of law school and she laughed but said the truth was not far off. It’s fascinating stuff and very difficult to be perfectly clear about…there comes a point where it seems as though pretty much everything is hearsay under one theory or another. For instance. Plaintiff says on the stand: “I told Defendant that I didn’t want her to pay this bill. I’m sure I did because I remember being angry about it.” Hearsay! Yes, reporting one’s own speech at an earlier time is hearsay, but that’s not the best part. It’s hearsay because he’s stating that he was angry when he said it. Not to prove that he was angry, but to prove that he said it. Can’t do that. And I’d love to see a trial with really top notch kick ass litigators and a judge who knows their shit backwards and forwards and see what such a trial would look like, because it seems quite the expectation for people to remember every one of these nuances in the moment that they are being spoken. Having sat through two trials, and now knowing how much completely outrageous shit made it through on both sides, I assume it that these nuances are NOT remembered thoroughly very often. I can understand the idea of “teams” of lawyers now… I imagine one is assigned to one very narrow area to be on the watch for, kinda like a script girl on a movie set… ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/194 "2009-05-13T02:33:14Z")
[QUOTE= Stoid] “I told Defendant that I didn’t want her to pay this bill. I’m sure I did because I remember being angry about it.” Hearsay! Yes, reporting one’s own speech at an earlier time is hearsay, but that’s not the best part. It’s hearsay because he’s stating that he was angry when he said it. Not to prove that he was angry, but to prove that he said it. Can’t do that. [/QUOTE] Classic excited utterance. Admissible., provided there’s a proper offer of proof, which there could or could not be, depending on… well, you don’t want to know. If it disagrees with you, you’re not going to read it. > **[Excited utterance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excited_utterances)** > > An excited utterance, in the law of evidence, is a statement made by a person in response to a startling or shocking event or condition. It is an unplanned reaction to a "startling event". It is an exception to the hearsay rule. The statement must be spontaneously made by the person (the declarant) while still under the stress of excitement from the event or condition. The subject matter and content of the statement must "relate to" the event or condition in question. The statement could b Un... Watch this- it will teach you more than you could ever learn doing what you’re doing. ![](https://img.youtube.com/vi/MLxgY1sVV9c/maxresdefault.jpg)https://www.youtube.com/embed/MLxgY1sVV9c?feature=oembed&wmode=opaque ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/195 "2009-05-13T02:41:32Z")
> [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](#): > > Classic excited utterance. Admissible. Party admission – so you don’t even need a hearsay exception. Possibly a verbal act, as well. Also, the statement “I was angry at the time” is in no wise hearsay. I don’t know how **Stoid** could possibly come to the conclusion that it is. Well, except for the fact that she is a nutter. Also when you introduce testimony “I said X” not to prove the truth of X, but to prove that someone said something (to show that the person was capable of speech, or that a notice was given), that is classic _non-hearsay._ Don’t worry **Stoid,** I’m sure you’ll find _Wigmore on Evidence._ Appellate courts love having hornbooks cited at them. ---
**Author:** ![Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ea5d25/32.png) [@Happy\_Scrappy\_Hero\_Pup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Happy_Scrappy_Hero_Pup)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/196 "2009-05-13T02:43:53Z")
> [@](#): > > Party admission – so you don’t even need a hearsay exception. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Rumor\_Watkins](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/d9b06d/32.png) [@Rumor\_Watkins](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rumor_Watkins)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/197 "2009-05-13T02:44:59Z")
> [@Stoid](#): > > For instance. Plaintiff says on the stand: > > “I told Defendant that I didn’t want her to pay this bill. I’m sure I did because I remember being angry about it.” > > Hearsay! > > Yes, reporting one’s own speech at an earlier time is hearsay, but that’s not the best part. It’s hearsay because he’s stating that he was angry when he said it. Not to prove that he was angry, but to prove that he said it. Can’t do that. This nugget of analytical gold illustrates why you are an appellant and not an appellee. ---
**Author:** ![Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/bbe5ce/32.png) [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimmy_Gibbler)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/198 "2009-05-13T02:48:37Z")
> [@Rumor\_Watkins](#): > > This nugget of analytical gold illustrates why you are an appellant and not an appellee. My favorite part was the breathless reporting of something everyone learns on the first day of the hearsay module in Evidence class. > [@](#): > > Guys! Guys! Did you _ **know** _ that your own out-of-court statements can be hearsay?!?!?!?! ZOMG! How crazy is THAT!! ---
**Author:** ![Richard\_Parker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/35a633/32.png) [@Richard\_Parker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Richard_Parker)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/199 "2009-05-13T02:50:37Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Party admission – so you don’t even need a hearsay exception. It’s not a party admission if you’re testifying about something you yourself said previously that helps your litigation position. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 13, 2009, 2:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115/200 "2009-05-13T02:51:13Z")
> [@Kimmy\_Gibbler](#): > > Party admission – so you don’t even need a hearsay exception. Depends on who is trying to get the evidence in. The Plaintiff made the statement so it’s admissible against her, but not in her favor. Rule 801(d)(2). I agree with the rest of your analysis. It depends a lot on the issue as to which exceptions might apply. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/arrogant-freeloading-information-seeking-asshats/496115.md?page=11)