LawTalkers  

Go Back   LawTalkers

» Site Navigation
 > FAQ
» Online Users: 1,284
0 members and 1,284 guests
No Members online
Most users ever online was 6,698, 04-04-2025 at 04:12 AM.
View Single Post
Old 06-01-2005, 02:16 PM   #4848
Hank Chinaski
Proud Holder-Post 200,000
 
Hank Chinaski's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Corner Office
Posts: 86,140
Quote:
Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
I hope everyone here is as impressed as I am by your attempt to argue that Felt's midnight rendezvousssess with W&B provided sufficient information to constitute an ethical lapse, but were inadequate to rise to the level required for an excuse for that lapse. As noted by RT, there weren't a lot of people he could have reported this to at the time. I look forward to your fleshing out this argument. You may begin.
Read the flowchart. You trying to say he was cool with his breach BECAUSE he had a duty to disclose. I'm saying if so he should have disclosed. ain't no other loop there.

IF

You work in government and are exposed to secret information

THEN

Do not disclose

UNLESS

crimes being committed

THEN

disclose

QED
__________________
I will not suffer a fool- but I do seem to read a lot of their posts

Last edited by Hank Chinaski; 06-01-2005 at 02:23 PM..
Hank Chinaski is offline  
 
Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.0.1

All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:34 AM.