Given that the thread was about legal issues, I would say that the lawyers’ reading of it was far more likely to be correct than your own. In any case, almost all the non-lawyers who have participated in this thread also read the original differently than you did.
As has already been pointed out, the OP was pretty clearly seeking some accurate feedback on legal issues, not mere bullshit, which is what **Fear Itself ** initially posted.
Did you notice that both of those cites contradicted his original post, which was:
“really bizarre” to me, because I was somehow feeling compelled to be involved when I didn’t even post in the original thread, and the guy in question didn’t seem particularly interested in defending himself. I should learn better.
“turf war” because the lawyers refused to concede a millimeter when there was obviously plenty of middle ground to be shared. I guess that’s what lawyers do.
And incidentally he was pitted well after his backtracking and further clarifying. Significantly, the author of the pitting has admitted she has no idea whether he was right or wrong. Yet everyone agrees it’s a marvelous pitting.
No, you’re the one who spouted insults and didn’t retract when wrong. I guess that’s what shallow posters do.
You said
“Then we are at an impasse, because I find your (and the other lawyers’) reading comprehension utterly lacking.
If you review the original thread, you’ll see that the OP was NOT asking for legal advice, she was asking for similar experiences.”
The OP said
“My direct supervisor said she has to talk to the managing partner and HR because there may be a liability issue. Is that true or is she just in a panic?”
So your reading comprehension is utterly lacking.
You also fail to understand that there is no ‘middle ground’. Fear Itself gave a wrong answer initially, then modified it a bit. At no time did he ask what jurisdiction was involved.
Middle ground to be shared when middle ground is no more than a half-baked half-truth? Don’t make me laugh. You are doubly ignorant – first in your knowledge of the law, and second in your knowledge of what lawyers do.
I begin to question your intelligence even more than FEAR ITSELF’s. Him, I don’t think is stupid, just mulish. You, on the other hand . . . I wonder. You see, the point, which I thought had been pretty clearly made before this, is that since NO ONE, including him, could know whether he was wrong or right, it was irresponsible for him to post as if he knew he was right, when he didn’t know that, he couldn’t know that, because none of us knew anything at that point. Even that only became an issue after he (a) continued to insist he was correct after it was pointed out he couldn’t possibly know that, and he may well be wrong; and (b) then tried to turn the issue back on to me, by saying that my refusal to weigh in indicated a lack of courage on my part.
Think of it this way: A poster starts a thread that says “I have a fever and a rash. What could this be.” Someone immediately posts: “You have syphilis.” Would you seriously be critical of doctors who posted to say “Hey, you can’t possibly know that yet”? Would you accuse them of starting a turf war, and of refusing to meet the guy in the middle?
On a Board dedicated to fighting ignorance, and in the forum most specifically geared to that endeavor (General Questions), none of us should tolerate people just pulling guesses out of their asses, when it’s clear those guesses have no basis. It’s as simple as that, and I honestly don’t believe you really don’t get it.
The author of the pitting acknowledged that she had no way of determining the answer based on the information authored (and that she couldn’t have done so authoritatively over a message board.)
If you think it’s appropriate, when an expert can’t answer a question, for some random person to pop in and offer a guess and claim it’s accurate, you have a very interesting approach to the truth. What, when the expert can’t answer, it’s up for grabs for everyone else to offer whatever crap they want? You’re new here. God knows the SDMB doesn’t always have the highest standards, but you are so far below even this place’s rather low bar that I have a hard time imagining you will fit in around here. Thank goodness I have a good memory for stupidity.
This isn’t the first time I’ve been at an impasse with an idiot. Fortunately, this time, there’s no overriding reason why I must continue to deal with the idiot in question.
However, I think that it is a great shame that idiots like you have driven away posters like Campion from legal threads.
Is the SDMB going to certify and verify who is and who is not a “professional”? :dubious: In other words, what is seems that Samclem is saying is that he will tolerate a poster that claims to be a lawyer “coming in and giving specific advice” but not a Poster that doesn;t claim to be a Lawyer. In other words, it seems to be that an unverified claim on the part of a Poster as to their IRL occupation will give them special status. :dubious: Now, I can see that **Bricker ** and Gfactor being part of the SDSAB have been vetted to a degree. And I am sure that some poster somewhere has met a couple of the other posters that claim to be lawyers and seen a business card or sumthin. So, I am not doubting that they are lawyers. What I am troubled with is that a claim to a IRL occupation gives you official special treatment by Staff here.
So, unless the SDMB is going to guarantee that they have verified and checked that a Poster is a Member of the Bar in a certain state, I think that **Samclem ** is wrong. No Members should be given special treatment on the part of Staff based upon what they claim their IRL occupation is. In other words, specific legal advice threads should be banned. General legal question threads should be open to all, and the OP needs must consider the source- and consider that the source is mearly a claim, not verified by the SDMB. In other words, if someone who claims to be a lawyer posts and gives an answer, the OP may choose to give that greater weight than another Member who claims no such occupation. But the Moderators should have no business using their “moderator hats” to tell the “amateurs” they are wrong and Warn them- especially as the Moderators don’t really know that the Amateurs are wrong- they just know that a Member who claims to be a lawyer says they are. In other words, the Mod is making a ruling based upon a Posters unverified claim of the IRL occupation and expertise.
And even so- an attorney may well be a Member of the Bar, and still know jack-shit about a certain question. The question may be outside his speciality, or the Lawyer may practice in another state. Hell, one of my friends is a Judge, and says all the time he knows very little current law outside of his field (Workers Comp). If a JUDGE doesn’t think he is qualfified to give an opinion on specific legal questions outside his specialty- how so is a *claimed * attorney from another state yet? Hell, many general legal questions here could be answered better by a sharp paralegal, law student or law clerk than “a specialized in another field entirely Bar Member from another state IRL attorney”.
The SDMB has no business is saying one Members opinion is better than another- we all pay the same fees. Too specific threads should be closed and elsewise-Caveat Emptor. And, I have no problem with a Mod sticking his “Moderator hat” wearing head in and saying that, in fact it’d be a good idea from time to time.
Nonsense. Good moderation is not blind. Posters that have developed their reputations over time and can lay claim to real-life expertise should most definitely be recognized in specific areas. We don’t need to officially examine school transcripts or licenses to know whether to value my opinion over Qadgop’s if the issue involves dermoid cysts. I paid just as much in membership fees last year as he did, but, shockingly, that does not make my opinion on the dermoid cyst issue equal to his. And even though he paid as much as I did, I humbly suggest that my view on elements of common-law fraud is worth more than his.
And there is no particular reason, your misplaced attempt at egalitarianism notwithstanding, that the moderation of this board should be blind to that.
I would have to agree with Bricker on this. If you don’t have the expertise in a specific field–you will get called on this. Do you recall the great meltdown between Bricker and MoonBeryl (??? someone or other)—great thread if you can find it!
My field (Architecture) may be a little easier for someone to pass themselves off–but I am confidant that I can find a poser. But then again my field–unlike medical or legal issues doesn’t have the immediate impact to harm others. In the few instances where it could–I have been very careful to direct the poster to an engineer or a real world Architect.
Do I know if Bricker is a lawyer? Or if Qadgop is a doctor? No–but from their postings they appear to handle the types of questions I would expect to come up in their respective fields easily and compentently. Doesn’t mean they couldn’t be just good con men–history has shown there are lots of people who can pose successfully as someone they are not. However given the medium we have here–to my satisfaction they have qualified their statements and their understanding of the issues relative to their fields.
I think the moderators walk a fine line on this issue–but if you post enough and prove that you are knowledgeable about a subject they do give you the benefit—which I think is the right thing to do.
One clue to me when a poster claims some expertise is exactly how they ‘qualify’ their statements–they don’t make all encompasing responses to situations they only know from the description by the poster. Any competent professional is going to qualify their comments in my opinion.
DrDeth, you have completely missed the point here. The question is not restricting who is allowed to reply to certain question. The question is about giving people consequential advice on important matters without the requisite knowledge and expertise.
On this issue, there is no difference between posters who are licensed to practice law and those who are not, except that the former will have a better idea when not to give advice.
Of course, everyone is free to offer opinions, anecdotes, speculation, and general information. The key is that posters – regardless of whether they are lawyers – should not be telling other posters what to do or making definitive statements about their legal status.
This is not lawyers against non-lawyers. The only reason you see all the lawyers on one side on this question is that we know how much we don’t know and how dangerous it might be for an OP if we say the wrong thing in the wrong way.
This is not a matter of the SDMB certifying who’s allowed to respond to a question. It’s about people who respond not acting like jerks.
In my opinion, the statement by Fear Itself that “I can accept a job at any time, etc.” and then being obstreperously ignorant when told that he’s wrong is acting like a jerk.
If he had simply said “In my opinion, I should be allowed to accept a job at any time, etc.” or “I am under the impression that I am allowed to accept a job at any time, etc.” then we wouldn’t be here now.
And you should “get called on it”- *by your fellow posters * (which is exactly what happened in the thread this OP is about). Not by a Mod “wearing a Mod hat”. After all- even experts can and have been wrong, and a Mod should not assume a claimed expert is right and the “amateur” is wrong when he has no personal idea of who is wrong or right. The Mod can shut the thread down if the question is asking too much, and I agree the Mod can say “Caveat Emptor”- but can he really say “Hey, Poster A claimm he’s and expert and you don’t claim to be thus you are wrong and this is your Official Mod warning to not give your opinion when an Expert has already done so”?
And where do we put the line on an “expert”? Say there’s a thread that a Poster starts about a funny clicking noise in his car- and Bricker opines it’s the starter- but another Poster who claims to be an auto mechanic sez it’s the alternator and Bricker is wrong. ** Bricker**- would you be OK with an Offical Moderator Warning about your post then? :dubious:
Or a female poster asks “Do these pants make me look fat?”- posters give varying opinions, but one poster claims to be a fashion designer- do the other posters get Official Mod Warnings? Yeah, I know that sounds silly, sure.
But what’s “an expert opinion”- what’s an “expert”? What kinds of questions do we allow only experts to give opinions? After all, a question about auto repair could be a matter of life and death, could it not? And thus be an “important matter”, right **acsenray ** ?(I admit “fat pants” is very trivial )
Or do we not consider Fashion Designers or Auto Mechanics to be “experts”, just Lawyers and Doctors? :rolleyes: Where do we draw that line?
Or say a Poster comes her and claims to be a Supreme Court Justice- Lawyer Dopers- would you be OK with not being able to disagree with the obviously greater claimed expert?
This is a diversion. Nobody is saying that only “experts” are allowed to comment. The fact is that legal experts are going to refrain from giving bad or uninformed advice and those who are not legal experts should follow that same guideline. Don’t give bad or uninformed advice.
And if you don’t know what you’re talking about don’t give advice at all, and certainly don’t draw definitive conclusions about something you know nothing about.
Note that this guideline does not prevent anyone from expressing their opinions about what the law might be or should be. It’s a matter of how you say it, and that’s something that any reasonable poster ought to be able to figure out.
Really? Legal experts never give bad or uninformed advice? So, we don’t need disbarment proceedings or legal malpractice lawsuits? :rolleyes: :dubious:
And- WHO is to say that the advice is “bad or uninformed”? The Mod- who is not an expert and doesn’t know if the advice really is bad or uninformed? Or should he just take the claimed experts word for it? How about if they disagree? Should the Mod select which lawyer *he thinks * is wrong and issue a warning?
We should close threads that ask for critical legal or medical advice. Those threads asking for opinions or on trivial matters should be open to all, no matter what expertise they do or do not claim. The OP should make his or her *choice * what “advice” to follow based upon the persuasive arguments and claims of expertise too. If we don’t do it that way, then if a claimed lawyer Doper does give bad legal advice, then the SDMB has painted itself into the corner of verifying that said legal advice is “good”. Penis ensues, not to mention lawsuits “well, I followed Poster XX’s advice as the Mod said Poster XX was an expert and the other Poster wasn’t, but it turned out to be wrong…”. Bad road to go down.
I appreciate the experts here giving their opinions. *Bricker, Qadgop, Gfactor, Una ** and so forth are all wonderful dudes to give of their time and expertise. But I don’t want a Mod telling me which Poster is right and which poster is wrong, and giving out Warnings based upon that.
*(Note, that I too- *to a much lesser extent, * as well as my Bro also contribute in our fields)-
Jodi, I remember you way back as a girl who was fixated on the glans of a penis. i thought then your imagination got the better of you.
Can you cite a case where a bookkeeper was legally prevented from accepting a job ? Or maybe subject to legal sanction for accepting a job based on a complaint by a previous employer ?
Did I say that legal experts never give bad or uninformed advice? I said that here, on this board legal experts are more likely to refrain from doing that. And the discussion here bears out this point. The lawyers on this board have refrained from giving bad or uninformed advice, by not giving advice period. That is the point. They have offered their thoughts, their opinions, their speculation, but not once has a lawyer here said “X is true.” But Fear Itself did, and that is what he did wrong.
I don’t understand why you are harping on this mod issue, because that is not the point of this thread. It’s not a matter of the board making a new rule about who is allowed to speak. It’s about not acting like a putz, especially when it’s been pointed out to you that you don’t know what you’re talking about.
The question of closing threads has not been proposed by those who are criticizing Fear Itself. This is another diversionary tactic.
The point is that such opinions should be stated in the language of an opinion. Not as a definitive conclusion, especially in a GQ thread. It matters how you say something.
)