IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Ben, I didn't know you to be a Polly-Anna!
>>If you don't find this persuasive, imagine for an instant if judges openly
>>engaged in extensive private conversations about their cases.

Take a Judge to lunch if you don't think this happens. Er, okay, maybe you need to know him/her first. But, come on, you don't think judges have "private conversations" about their cases, witnesses they've seen, briefs they've read? You do live in Murica, don't you?

New I am not
Note the word "openly".

I know human nature and know that it happens covertly, no matter what the rules say. I was just saying why the rules are as they are.

Incidentally you may be amused that I very, very nearly wrote "depends on a myth" instead of "has a principle". :-)

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
New Must retake "Reading 101" how'd I miss "openly"? But, ...
how does one "openly" engage in "private conversations"? ;-)
New Actually it is the converse that is hard
First of all the use of the word was subtle, which is why I thought about the more explicit phrase. (Don't remember why I chose otherwise.)

But how does one openly engage in private conversations? Quite easily it turns out. If either of you blabs, it is now openly out there that you had a private conversation. Therefore reporters are a poor choice for a private conversation. Likewise you don't want to bring up anecdotes from your private conversations. And so on and so forth.

All of which comes down to the fact that if you are in the spotlight, then the trick comes with having your inevitable private conversations not be open.

I should note that what we are saying here goes just as well for every other profession with professional confidentiality. For instance priests, lawyers, therapists and doctors in practice routinely violate confidentiality to various extents. (And be honest, has anyone ever privately pushed the boundaries of an NDA with you?) Often maintaining the perception is more important in practice than maintaining the reality.

Cheers,
Ben
"Career politicians are inherently untrustworthy; if it spends its life buzzing around the outhouse, it\ufffds probably a fly."
- [link|http://www.nationalinterest.org/issues/58/Mead.html|Walter Mead]
New Semantics.
>> .. the trick comes with having your inevitable private conversations not be
>> open.

I'd rewrite that, "The trick comes with keeping your inevitable private conversations private" or "The trick comes with preventing your inevitable private conversations from becoming open". What you describe in your last is a private conversation that has ceased to be "private". I get it now. You will forgive me, I'm slow because I am the product of countless generations of inbreeding in the hills of North Carolina. ;-)

     Blast from the past; Judge Jackson speaks out... - (marlowe) - (9)
         The "rules" want to have it both ways - (drewk) - (8)
             There is a reason for that though - (ben_tilly) - (7)
                 But these were interviews - (drewk) - (1)
                     Courts like to have a "bright line" - (ben_tilly)
                 Ben, I didn't know you to be a Polly-Anna! - (mmoffitt) - (4)
                     I am not - (ben_tilly) - (3)
                         Must retake "Reading 101" how'd I miss "openly"? But, ... - (mmoffitt) - (2)
                             Actually it is the converse that is hard - (ben_tilly) - (1)
                                 Semantics. - (mmoffitt)

Just slightly more difficult than choosing your parents.
71 ms