On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:48 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee arromdee@rahul.net wrote:
Giano's actions fuelled the flames of drama, made a humiliating experience into a bloodbath for Durova, were wounding and bruising, violated privacy, and Giano has made *no apology whatsoever*.
Blowing the whistle on misconduct is the fault of the one on whom the whistle is being blown, not the fault of the one blowing the whistle. Giano posting the email could not have resulted in drama if the email hadn't been part of Durova's misconduct. Any drama from posting the email should then be attributed to Durova.
I am reminded of the episode of Yes, Minister, in which I think it is Sir Humphrey who points out the essential difference between that which is in the public interest.
Sending the email to ArbCom may well have been in the public interest. Publishing the contents of private emails is much more often for the prurient interest of the public - in this case to feed the insatiable demand for "MOAR DRAMA"
Guy (JzG)