On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 11:34:48 -0800 (PST), Ken Arromdee
<arromdee(a)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)
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JzG