I didn't mean any harm by it. But I still transgressed against someone I don't even know.

My department at work is somewhat isolated, so I don't really know other people in the company well. I make and accept Facebook friend requests from anyone at work who seems like they have many connections to me. I figure, maybe it's a chance to get to know them better. I tend to skim their profile once and forget all about them.

This weekend, one quiet woman who I don't know well at all finally accepted a friend request that had been pending for a year. She goes by a married name at work, but I noticed that her maiden name was the same as a local celebrity, and she bears a resemblance. Sure enough, it looks from her profile like she's the sister of this semi-famous local guy, although I couldn't be 100% sure.

At lunch today, we got to talking about people who have been with the company for many years. Her name came up. I blurted out that the local celebrity is her brother. I explained how I learned it. The anecdote was mildly interesting and the conversation moved on.

Five minutes later, she stood up at the next table to leave, and glared at me on the way out. Obviously I hadn't even seen her there. I felt like a jerk, because I was one. It didn't even occur to me that this information was private and that she might be selective about who knows.

Now not only will she have a reputation for being related to this guy, but I'll have a reputation for not being able to keep a secret about co-workers. The difference is, I deserve mine. :-(

For whatever it's worth, I've learned the lesson. I will not gossip about people again, especially co-workers. I feel terrible.


Three Replies to Gossip Grrr

Scott Hardie | November 18, 2018
Wonderful: It turns out she is the local celebrity's daughter, not sister. So not only did I blab information that was none of my business to share, but it was false information that made her sound much older than she is. I feel twice as terrible.

Erik Bates | November 18, 2018
[hidden by author request]

Scott Hardie | November 19, 2018
I appreciate that, thanks. But I still feel like I was negligent in my responsibility to be discreet with someone else's private business. It wasn't as bad as malicious blabbing, so pointing that out does make me feel better, but it was still wrong.


Logical Operator

The creator of Funeratic, Scott Hardie, blogs about running this site, losing weight, and other passions including his wife Kelly, his friends, movies, gaming, and Florida. Read more »

Powerless

Going without electricity in Florida can be a miserable affair. You sweat non-stop. You sleep fitfully at best, waking up in pools of your own body fluid. Go »

March 14, 1977

I hope this doesn't set a precedent for doing this on everybody's 30th birthday, or I'm going to be busy writing these for the next few years... Top Ten Reasons Denise Sawicki is Awesome 10) She wore red on her wedding day, and she looked good. 9) She doesn't just send the DVD as a surprise birthday gift. Go »

Chatt Story

Kelly and I are home from a brief road trip to Chattanooga. The primary reason for going was the wedding of an old friend of Kelly. The ceremony was beautiful, held on the banks of Fall Creek Falls Lake, with some of the best-written vows I've ever heard, at once personal and profound. Go »

She Can Really Whip a Donkey's Ass with a Belt

I hate the Black-Eyed Peas. You hate the Black-Eyed Peas. But Alanis Morissette really hates the Black-Eyed Peas. Go »

Spiders on Drugs

Thanks, Aaron. (link) Go »

All King and No Kubrick Make Jack a Dull Boy

I recently got to talking with friends who liked The Shining, both Stephen King's novel and Stanley Kubrick's film adaptation of it, but who were unaware that King has always loathed the movie, despite its reputation as one of the best horror films ever made. It's hard to imagine that a writer doesn't know his own work better than someone interpreting it, but I think this is one of those rare cases where the writer is just too close to the story to get it. Here are three reasons why I think Kubrick's film better understands the material, and is better overall, than King's novel: 1) In King's version, Jack Torrance is a fundamentally decent man who wouldn't hurt a fly, but who is down on his luck and desperate. Go »