# Campion, you sanctimonious pissant **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [July 18, 2006, 3:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971 "2006-07-18T03:55:58Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Pushkin](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ee59a6/32.png) [@Pushkin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Pushkin)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/41 "2006-07-18T15:51:17Z")
I get the feeling that Campion is one of those people who could easily slice you up verbally, but she was far from rude and not really deserving of; > [@](#): > > Fuck you, your mother, your father, your children, all your ancestors, and all the horses that carried their sorry asses wherever the hell they went The OP was a serious request and probably could have done with a more authoritative or helpful answer, which is what Campion did. At least Otto made me smile 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![shizaru](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/9d8465/32.png) [@shizaru](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/shizaru)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 3:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/42 "2006-07-18T15:58:19Z")
I’ve got an idea…since the OP and Campion don’t have anything more than what could be called a disagreement, why don’t they just shake hands (metaphorically) and call it a day? **Oakminster** I don’t think Campion treated you badly at first, but thats only my opinion. I’ve been wrong and called on it in other forums before. Sometimes I just got mad and saw an insult when there was none. Sometimes there was an insult. But most of the time after I settled down a bit I thought about it and figured its not worth making an enemy over. Thats only my opinion. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/43 "2006-07-18T16:16:32Z")
I think I’m the only one on **Oakminster** ’s side in this, though the pitting is a mite overboard. **Campion** ’s critiquing **Oakminster** ’s post for its lack of authority was snippy and condescending, and implies that there’s an agreed-on way of tackling legal subjects in GD. Just because **Campion** answers GD questions to such-and-such a standard does not mean that that’s the standard everyone has to follow. There’s nothing wrong whatever with citing Wikipedia as a general reference. \*\*Oakminster \*\*never said it was a substitute for calling a lawyer. And hell, the fact that he cited _anything_ raises his post above 90% of the waggery that passes for response in GD these days. ---
**Author:** ![MandaJo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ac91a4/32.png) [@MandaJo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MandaJo)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/44 "2006-07-18T16:19:28Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] I think I’m the only one on **Oakminster** ’s side in this, though the pitting is a mite overboard. **Campion** ’s critiquing **Oakminster** ’s post for its lack of authority was snippy and condescending, and implies that there’s an agreed-on way of tackling legal subjects in GD. Just because **Campion** answers GD questions to such-and-such a standard does not mean that that’s the standard everyone has to follow. There’s nothing wrong whatever with citing Wikipedia as a general reference. \*\*Oakminster \*\*never said it was a substitute for calling a lawyer. And hell, the fact that he cited _anything_ raises his post above 90% of the waggery that passes for response in GD these days. [/QUOTE] Except it was in GQ–where cites have a slight edge over waggery. ---
**Author:** ![glee](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/b5a626/32.png) [@glee](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/glee)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/45 "2006-07-18T16:19:55Z")
[QUOTE=Oakminster] I’m trying to be a helpful Doper, providing useful information to someone with a general question. I am not attempting to provide legal advice, nor am I arguing to a Court or Agency. I linked to a wikipedia article, which provides a useful summary of WC law for laymen. [/QUOTE] The original poster specifically mentioned their jurisdiction and clearly wanted precise information to help decide whether to pay for legal advice. You didn’t identify yourself as a lawyer and gave a non-legal cite which didn’t refer to the specified location. As others have said, the Board aims for a much higher standard in GQ (as a professional chess teacher, I answer chess questions there); when this was pointed out to you, you started this Pit thread. You were wrong. Hopefully you can offer better advice in the future. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Surb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/ce73a5/32.png) [@The\_Surb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Surb)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/46 "2006-07-18T16:37:39Z")
Oh come on. Isn’t ANYONE else hoping for a Beryl\_Mooncalf-style meltdown. I can’t be the ONLY one can I? ---
**Author:** ![Sarahfeena](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/sarahfeena/32/519_2.png) [@Sarahfeena](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sarahfeena)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/47 "2006-07-18T16:40:16Z")
[QUOTE=glee] The original poster specifically mentioned their jurisdiction and clearly wanted precise information to help decide whether to pay for legal advice. You didn’t identify yourself as a lawyer and gave a non-legal cite which didn’t refer to the specified location. As others have said, the Board aims for a much higher standard in GQ (as a professional chess teacher, I answer chess questions there); when this was pointed out to you, you started this Pit thread. You were wrong. Hopefully you can offer better advice in the future. [/QUOTE] I agree. Pretty much anyone could have given a Wikipedia cite. I think the point Campion was trying to make was that it is not a good idea to give a general answer to a specific question, especially when it comes to the law. Taking the position that you know what you are talking about because you are a lawyer is problematic in 2 ways. One, because it came a couple posts too late, and two, because a lawyer should know better than to throw out a Wikipedia cite in a case like this (bad enough if a layperson does it). I have to take Campion’s side in this one. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/48 "2006-07-18T16:40:41Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] I think I’m the only one on **Oakminster** ’s side in this, though the pitting is a mite overboard. **Campion** ’s critiquing **Oakminster** ’s post for its lack of authority was snippy and condescending, and implies that there’s an agreed-on way of tackling legal subjects in GD. Just because **Campion** answers GD questions to such-and-such a standard does not mean that that’s the standard everyone has to follow. There’s nothing wrong whatever with citing Wikipedia as a general reference. \*\*Oakminster \*\*never said it was a substitute for calling a lawyer. And hell, the fact that he cited _anything_ raises his post above 90% of the waggery that passes for response in GD these days. [/QUOTE] I don’t agree. Answering legal questions in GQ should conform to a particular standard; the mnere fact that many people flout those standards is not cause to embrace a lower standard, or refrain from criticism when the correct standard is not met. Being challenged on an assertion means that you are able to either concede error or provide a specifc statutory or case law cite supporting your claim. A wiki article that itself provides such cites is fine; a wiki article that makes vague, unsupported assertions is not. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/49 "2006-07-18T16:42:01Z")
[QUOTE=The Surb] Oh come on. Isn’t ANYONE else hoping for a Beryl\_Mooncalf-style meltdown. I can’t be the ONLY one can I? [/QUOTE] Ah, memories. ---
**Author:** ![Leviosaurus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/439d5e/32.png) [@Leviosaurus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Leviosaurus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/50 "2006-07-18T16:46:07Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] I think I’m the only one on **Oakminster** ’s side in this, though the pitting is a mite overboard. **Campion** ’s critiquing **Oakminster** ’s post for its lack of authority was snippy and condescending [/QUOTE] Totally agree. \*\*Oakminster \*\* could have handled it differently than creating a pit thread, but pit thread or no **Campion** ’s snippy tone was entirely uncalled for and outright rude. [QUOTE=Bricker] I don’t agree. Answering legal questions in GQ should conform to a particular standard; the mnere fact that many people flout those standards is not cause to embrace a lower standard, or refrain from criticism when the correct standard is not met. [/QUOTE] I see no problem attacking the cite or setting a standard, but rudeness should not be an acceptable part of that standard. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/51 "2006-07-18T16:51:17Z")
While I think the OP is WA-A-A-A-Y out of proportion to the offense, I do think I see a bit of **Oakminster’s** point. Look at **Campion’s** first response: > [@](#): > > Oakminster, citation to a wikipedia article that itself lacks citations to authority doesn’t even rise to the level of persuasive authority, let alone evidence of binding authority to support your position. When she could have said: > [@](#): > > I must say, I am not entirely convinced by this point from wiki. It doens’t sound like anything I have come across in my lawyering. Would you happen to have another, possibly more definitive cite. I certainly don’t think **Campion** was intending to be snooty or condescending, but that classic lawyer-ese talk does not necessarily translate well. So **Oakminster** being a lawyer sees that and thinks, “Well, duh! I didn’t spend x years and $xxx,xxx at law school” and gets offended. I think **Oakminster’s** went overboard, but Campion’s post does have a a touch of the “Let the big boys (girls) handle this one.” ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/52 "2006-07-18T16:53:51Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] **Campion** ’s critiquing **Oakminster** ’s post for its lack of authority was snippy and condescending, and implies that there’s an agreed-on way of tackling legal subjects in GD. [/quote] \*\*Campiion’s \*\* post was not in the the least discourteous, and perception of it as “snippy and condescending” is entirely a projection on the part of **Oakminster** (and evidently you). > [@](#): > > Just because **Campion** answers GD questions to such-and-such a standard does not mean that that’s the standard everyone has to follow. It should be. It would cut out a lot of the crap in GQ. > [@](#): > > There’s nothing wrong whatever with citing Wikipedia as a general reference. I regularly cite it myself as a _general_ reference, but using it as a cite on a legal issue - especially by a lawyer, who should have better resources at hand - is not really justified. > [@](#): > > \*\*Oakminster \*\*never said it was a substitute for calling a lawyer. And hell, the fact that he cited _anything_ raises his post above 90% of the waggery that passes for response in GD these days. Just because a lot of people post crap in GQ (which I presume you mean) doesn’t mean there is a general free pass for doing so. **Campion’s** initial post was quite legitimate for GQ, and **Oakminster’s** response was an extreme over-reaction. I would suggest that if **Oakminster** is so absurdly thin-skinned, he confine his posting to MPSIMS. ---
**Author:** ![askeptic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/eb9ed0/32.png) [@askeptic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/askeptic)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 5:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/53 "2006-07-18T17:04:55Z")
[QUOTE=Sarahfeena] I agree. Pretty much anyone could have given a Wikipedia cite. I think the point Campion was trying to make was that it is not a good idea to give a general answer to a specific question, especially when it comes to the law. Taking the position that you know what you are talking about because you are a lawyer is problematic in 2 ways. One, because it came a couple posts too late, and two, because a lawyer should know better than to throw out a Wikipedia cite in a case like this (bad enough if a layperson does it). I have to take Campion’s side in this one. [/QUOTE] Three ways, actually. The third is anybody can “say” they’re a lawyer on a message board. I believe many people around here are lawyers, but if any one of them was talking out of their ass and when called on it responded “Oh yeah, well I am a lawyer” I would think one of two things: 1. The person is not in fact a lawyer, or 2. They are one of the many lawyers who are full of shit and like to talk about things they no nothing about. The fact that someone has a law degree doesn’t mean much, and it certainly will not magically turn a shit sandwich into a BLT. Oakminster made factual assertions that appear to be incorrect, he has not supported his assertions. Despite what someone above mentioned, it is not enough to say “I am a lawyer and this Wiki article is accurate”. A lawyer \*\*if he/she wishes to argue from authority \*\* needs to state the jurisdiction they practice in, their area of practice, and the source of their information. Since this is a message board I would not go to that kind of trouble, so I would not attempt to “argue from authority” I would merely argue as a poster, providing credible cites. It should be noted that few of the actual lawyers around here ever insert the fact that they happen to be lawyers into posts on legal topics. Sure it may come up tangentially, but I haven’t seen it used as an argumentative point. At least not effectively. ---
**Author:** ![KSO](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/f07891/32.png) [@KSO](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KSO)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/54 "2006-07-18T17:13:58Z")
[QUOTE=The Surb] Oh come on. Isn’t ANYONE else hoping for a Beryl\_Mooncalf-style meltdown. I can’t be the ONLY one can I? [/QUOTE] No, you’re not. I’m also reminded of the lawyer who threatened to sue the Reader for libel–can’t remember his name though. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 6:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/55 "2006-07-18T18:30:29Z")
[QUOTE=Colibri] Just because a lot of people post crap in GQ (which I presume you mean) doesn’t mean there is a general free pass for doing so. [/QUOTE] Sorry – for “GD” in my post, read “GQ.” But I don’t agree that what \*\*Oakminster \*\*posted was crap. And I’m not arguing that in general the level of authority in GQ shouldn’t be higher. I know this is kind of a hot-button issue of yours, and I kind of agree, though at that point we’d see a lot of one-post answers in GQ – which maybe is as it should be, maybe not. I don’t see that for legal questions the standard should be any higher than for any other types of questions, per **Bricker** ’s contention. But ultimately, the question here is not really the authority or lack of it of **Oakminster** ’s cite. It’s about the language used by **Campion** , which at least some of us felt to be condescending and out of line. Pitworthy? Not so much in my book, but then **Oakminster** ’s a touchier guy than I am. ---
**Author:** ![stretch](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/a6a055/32.png) [@stretch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/stretch)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 7:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/56 "2006-07-18T19:43:45Z")
I’m having a problem with this line of reasoning: [QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] But ultimately, the question here is not really the authority or lack of it of **Oakminster** ’s cite. It’s about the language used by **Campion** , which at least some of us felt to be condescending and out of line. Pitworthy? Not so much in my book, but then **Oakminster** ’s a touchier guy than I am. [/QUOTE] From the original thread: [Quote=Campion] Oakminster, citation to a wikipedia article that itself lacks citations to authority doesn’t even rise to the level of persuasive authority, let alone evidence of binding authority to support your position. [/quote] This statement is true and simple. This “she could have said things the way I would say things” line of reasoning is bullshit; we are individuals with individual posting styles. Nothing in her post screams what an idiot!, more or less she seems to be reminding Oakminster that a paragraph from Wiki doesn’t mean a whole lot to support his earlier post. > [@Oakminster](#): > > Details will vary by state, but in general, if he was doing whatever he was doing for some “company pupose”, worker’s comp will likely cover it. However, again depending on state law, **in many cases filing a worker’s comp claim gets the person fired**. (bolding mine) Where? Who? When? No supporting links in the wiki article, making it worthless–it’s just some person saying that without supporting links to cases where this has happened. ---
**Author:** ![Colibri](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/colibri/32/1841_2.png) [@Colibri](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Colibri)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/57 "2006-07-18T20:56:16Z")
[QUOTE=Sal Ammoniac] But ultimately, the question here is not really the authority or lack of it of **Oakminster** ’s cite. It’s about the language used by **Campion** , which at least some of us felt to be condescending and out of line. Pitworthy? Not so much in my book, but then **Oakminster** ’s a touchier guy than I am. [/QUOTE] You seriously think that this: [QUOTE=Campion] Oakminster, citation to a wikipedia article that itself lacks citations to authority doesn’t even rise to the level of persuasive authority, let alone evidence of binding authority to support your position. [/QUOTE] is “condescending and out of line.”? Curt, perhaps, but it seems to be a simple and straightforward statement of fact to me. It certainly didn’t merit \*\*Oakminster’s \*\* over-the-top response in the thread, let alone this ridiculous pit thread. I usually try to phrase my responses in as neutral a way as possible in GQ (at least until a particular poster has established that they merit some snark). But sometimes what I intended as a pertfectly bland statement is taken as an insult by some hypersensitive git. I personally find that kind of bullshit extremely annoying. Once again, if someone is such a delicate flower that they find the kind of reponse that **Campion** made a threat to their fragile self-esteem, best stay in MPSIMS, or better yet, not post here at all. ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/58 "2006-07-18T20:56:50Z")
[QUOTE=KSO] No, you’re not. I’m also reminded of the lawyer who threatened to sue the Reader for libel–can’t remember his name though. [/QUOTE] Well, there was former moderator **Melin** , but I believe her case was worlds apart from that of the delightfully insane Beryl\_Mooncalf. Melin had a series of increasingly contentious encounters with board management, and while she took things too far, her position was not batshit crazy. And she was a lawyer – at least the evidence showed that she was to my satisfaction. Baryl\_Mooncalf was falsely claiming to be a lawyer, and was batshit crazy. Good times, that. ---
**Author:** ![Sal\_Ammoniac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/8dc957/32.png) [@Sal\_Ammoniac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sal_Ammoniac)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 8:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/59 "2006-07-18T20:57:24Z")
Demonstrably I’m unusual in thinking that a sniffy, “Your post falls short of this forum’s standards” is more than a little condescending. Particularly since the standards are entirely in the eyes of the beholder. ---
**Author:** ![Chez\_Guevara](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/aeb1de/32.png) [@Chez\_Guevara](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chez_Guevara)\ **Post date:** [July 18, 2006, 9:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971/60 "2006-07-18T21:04:41Z")
[QUOTE=stretch] This statement is true and simple. This “she could have said things the way I would say things” line of reasoning is bullshit; we are individuals with individual posting styles. Nothing in her post screams what an idiot!, more or less she seems to be reminding Oakminster that a paragraph from Wiki doesn’t mean a whole lot to support his earlier post. [/QUOTE] I couldn’t agree more. It seems there are people willing to put the worst possible interpretation on a post without even thinking about it, jump right in and here we are. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/campion-you-sanctimonious-pissant/364971.md?page=4)