5 ms·
If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take. Yeah, but there is a difference between ideas that
by forgottenpass 11y ago
If you've ever been involve in anything "management-esque" you'll know this is quite a common route to take.
Yeah, but there is a difference between ideas that aren't ready to be broadcast, and betraying the trust someone has placed in me with the understanding there are just some things I have to operate on in secret. And if you've ever been involved in anything "management-esque," you'll know that a mutual acceptance of what barriers exist doesn't preclude being deceitful and dishonest in protecting that knowledge.
I won't say the line is perfectly clear, but lets look at the scenario in question. Responding in a hairsplitting manner that serves to mislead someone asking pointed questions about ideas behind the curtain. It occurred at non-profit that values transparency, the ideas were in flux but firm enough to seek grant funding, and there were no externally-imposed legal constraints to stay quiet on it. Well, that seems quite firmly in the "lie of omission" category.
- kafkaesq 11y agoI get your general point. About general principles and such. But please understand that as an outsider, it's difficult to see (from what you've written above) where trust was broken, or what other lines have been crossed. You do seem quite strident in your overall judgement of what happened. But I still don't have a clear picture (or any picture really) as to what did happen. You know, an event chronology, or the like? That might be helpful.