A moment of truth, it would seem.
In another forum, an argument or whether or not a 20+-year veteran of some trade had the right — the use of that word is crucial here — to chew out someone else, using the saltiest language this side of the docks, for a perceived incompetence. The justification for this was what you'd expect: if someone is several orders of magnitude in skill above another, he's earned the right (again, the word is crucial) to not suffer fools gladly.
In a word: NO.
There is no "right" earned in such a circumstance. Just because you can chew someone else out for being less competent (again, that's your perception) doesn't make it justifiable. Competence does not confer upon you the privilege to abuse others, no matter how far behind you they are allegedly trailing.
Sure, a person can do it, and they might even get away with it because they're surrounded by others who justify such behavior. But that doesn't make it right, that doesn't make it justifiable, and that sure as hell doesn't make it commendable.
Very little work on my part is needed to bring back to mind any number of social circumstances where this sort of thing not only happened, but was excused or swept under the rug by everyone else in the vicinity. Expertise doesn't give you the right to be uncivil, even in the name of not having your precious time wasted.
The fact that "time-wasting" is the most common justification I see bandied about for being abusive tells me the whole thing is really nothing more than a way for someone to defend their vision of themselves as an unimpeachable authority. The index of a person's arrogance is generally directly proportionate to how easily they feel their time is wasted by others.