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 : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: LindyBill who wrote (153464)	1/3/2006 12:13:36 PM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793578

You are trying to move the goal-posts on the definition of "whistleblowing." I'm not trying to "move" anything. To move something it had to first be set. I'm noting that people are talking about whistleblowing without having a common definition. I know how you feel about semantic debates. I'm trying to avoid one, not start one. If you want to define "whistle-blowing" as whatever gets you off the hook under the whistle-blower legislation applies in this case, fine, but then we'd need to all be lawyers to discuss it. I specified "common-parlance" for a reason. I think that Mary was using the term that way. In common-parlance, even under the whistle-blower act, you can be a whistle-blower and still be found guilty, for example, if you don't follow the prescribed protocols for reporting the infraction. I would think you could also be considered a whistle-blower if the infraction you reported were not, in the final analysis, illegal but you could reasonably have thought it did.