Quote:
Originally Posted by steve B
I believe it's more likely one of the following
Peter being told something in confidence and not being the sort of person to break that confidence.
Sometimes we all learn "stuff" and it's possible disclosing "stuff" could result in a lawsuit. Which would be expensive even if there was solid evidence the info was true. Without that- and getting some "stuff" in writing is not easy, it could become very expensive and/or time consuming. Not being stupid he decides to avoid an unprovable direct accusation.
Steve B
|
Then why say anything at all? Just say nothing rather a really ambiguous statement that can never be corroborated? To satisfy the need of proving you are "in the know"? All you do is provoke more conversation that down a path that you promised against. You might as well just say it at that point. You already let the cat out of the bag if it is true and if not you just throw your reputation on the line.