Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (129739)	12/15/2000 2:12:37 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 1571040

No if you bribe the ref but you don't get caught you are still cheating. If your running back goes out on the one that isn't cheating whether it is caught or not. You didn't do anything dishonest. The ref may have made a bad call but not calling attention to a bad call in your favor is not cheating. Actual cheating is cheating even when you don't get caught. Not telling some one something is not lying. Giving them false information is. In some situations not telling some one something may be wrong, but even when it is wrong it is not lying. Tim, This seems to be a tough one. A wrong is a wrong no matter whether its been caught or not. A wrong doesn't become a right 'cause no one saw it. You saw it and you knew it was wrong, and that's all it takes. Gaining a reward for not winning something honestly is wrong. Gaining a reward because you failed to disclose an error that would have disqualified you from receiving that reward is wrong. No matter how you slice it, its wrong. To repeat....you did not win the game fairly if you as the coach so your player step of bounds and no one caught it but you.....and then you kept your mouth shut. One of the major reasons a game has to have refs is because people have a propensity to cheat when no one is looking. Its wrong. ted