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;
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 
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.
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.
Except it was in GQ–where cites have a slight edge over waggery.
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.
Oh come on. Isn’t ANYONE else hoping for a Beryl_Mooncalf-style meltdown. I can’t be the ONLY one can I?
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.
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.
Ah, memories.
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.
I see no problem attacking the cite or setting a standard, but rudeness should not be an acceptable part of that standard.
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:
When she could have said:
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.”
**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).
It should be. It would cut out a lot of the crap in GQ.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
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.
I’m having a problem with this line of reasoning:
From the original thread:
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.
(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.
You seriously think that this:
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.
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.
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.
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.