gemini13 said:

What's the ultimate point behind the public divulgence of the personal knowledge or information? Is the disclosure germane to revealing criminal or potentially dangerous behaviour, or to prevent or protect an innocent party from harm, or is it merely a way to satisfy a base desire to cause humiliation to another with whom you are angry?

One's trustworthiness is compromised when one breaks a confidence by publically disclosing (irrelevant) information given in confidence. Just because you are "telling the truth" does not equate to remaining trustworthy - that's just a rationalization to justify vindictiveness.

It's my opinion that mudslinging accomplishes nothing but providing a cheap, momentary satisfaction. Rise above it.
[Edited 3/27/07 15:41pm]

WillyWonka said:

CortestheKiller said:

When they threaten your status as superior, or when they eat cookies in bed.

CortestheKiller said:

I think it depends on how you obtained the knowledge. If the person in question offered you the information, I'd say never. However, if you acquired the knowledge through a third-party and the protagonist is a major cunt, I'd say go for it.

BinaryJustin said:

I love you Justin.

CortestheKiller said:

each situation is different, and different actions require different reactions.
and although i do see what you are getting at, and to an extent i agree with you totally.

but sometimes one has a call it the way they see it

and sometimes a pussy can also be an asshole

eraclito said:

And sometimes people watch Team America too much.

WillyWonka said:

It's more the former, usually when I know that someone is lying. I tend to want to expose them, and feel good when they are exposed. So when I say that I need to disclose information, it's not irrelevant information. As far as I'm concerned, deceptiveness needs to be fought with truthfulness, and that's not vindictiveness.

I like to think of it in terms of a quote that someone posted on another thread..."What is done in the dark will come to the light" or something to that effect....

...and I'll go a step further to say that things usually do come to the light with no assistance or outing from someone else....If the situation dictates an outing to prevent injury or damage, then thats different...but in most cases, its just a vehicle for catch-back....as in "you hurt me, so I'm going to hurt you worse"....

just my

CortestheKiller said:

they are the police of the world u know

reneGade20 said:

this is a very interesting post, personally if someone hurts me, i like to hurt them back at least 5 times as much.

that usually readdreses the ballance for me. i have very little faith in karma
and all that done in the dark come to light stuff...

eraclito said:

I'm big on karma as it relates to me and my deeds (or misdeeds depending on the situation.... )....when left to its own devices, any disparaging information about me that comes out of discovery is very damaging because it doesn't allow much wiggle room....however, if someone outs me or I fall "victim" to rumor mongering, no matter how true it is I have an out available because I can chalk it up to a personal vendetta or what have you....I know that sounds bad, but its a fact.....would I like to exact a measure of revenge on someone who personally hurts me? Hell yeah!! But in the long run I'd rather stay above the fray and let them come to their inevitable demise on their own...something about the hubris of vanity being stripped away from someone makes the fall much more satisfying.....

reneGade20 said:

I am with you my friend

Shanti1 said:

Just to drive home the point of life's unexpected twists...




Bush withdraws ambassador nominee amid Democratic opposition

March 28, 2007 11:23 AM CDT

By SAM HANANEL Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Wednesday withdrew the ambassadorial nomination of businessman Sam Fox after Democrats denounced Fox for giving money to a controversial conservative group that undermined Sen. John Kerry's 2004 presidential campaign.

Kerry, D-Mass., had criticized Fox because of a $50,000 contribution that Fox made in 2004 to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Many Democrats blame the group for sinking Kerry's presidential hopes that year after it aired a series of controversial ads that impugned Kerry's military record in the Vietnam War. One of Fox's strongest backers, Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., said it was "disappointing that a capable and qualified candidate with bipartisan support has become a victim of a political vendetta."

The White House announced the withdrawal in a press release distributed less than an hour before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee gathered to vote on his nomination to be ambassador to Belgium.

On Tuesday, Kerry's Vietnam crew mates had sent a letter urging committee members to oppose Fox's nomination. "In our judgment, those who finance smears and lies of combat veterans don't deserve to represent America on the world stage," said the letter signed by 11 Vietnam Swift Boat veterans who served with Kerry. Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., the second ranking member of the committee, said Tuesday he would oppose the nomination because Fox "refused to apologize for his behavior" during his confirmation hearing last month.

Fox, 77, of St. Louis, is national chairman of the Jewish Republican Coalition and has donated well over $1 million to Republican candidates and causes since the 1990s, according to Federal Election Commission records. He was deemed a "ranger" by President Bush's campaign for helping to raise at least $200,000.

Kerry grilled Fox about the Swift Boat contribution during the Feb. 27 hearing, asking him why he gave money to a group that was "smearing and spreading lies" and had been condemned by members of both political parties. Fox replied that he considers Kerry a hero. But he refused to call the contribution a mistake.

"When I'm asked, I just generally give," Fox told Kerry. Fox did not backed down in a series of written responses to Kerry since the hearing. Complicating matters is the presence of three Democratic presidential hopefuls on the committee - the chairman, Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del.; and Sens. Barack Obama, D-Ill., and Dodd.

At the end of the hearing last month, Obama told Fox he found his testimony "somewhat unsatisfying." "I would have preferred you saying, you know, 'In retrospect looking back, contributing to the Swift Boat campaign was a mistake and I wish I hadn't done it,"' Obama told Fox. Fox had garnered the public support of Missouri Sens. Claire McCaskill, D-Mo., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, I-Conn., both of whom testified for him.

I thought about this a lot when that guy outed Ted Haggart. The male prostitute. He violated Haggart's trust severely and in a very public way, essentially destroying his life. But. . . Haggart was dedicating himself to destroying others. He was speaking out with hatred against people who shared something he hated about himself: his homosexuality. His hypocrisy was being used as a weapon against the rest of us. I think the prostitute did the world a favor. I think he did the right thing.

So, in short, I think it's sometimes justified. But rarely.