A moral infraction...should I go forward with the truth?

[necrophiliac]

<p>

Is there anyone that thinks that makes an ounce of sense?

no logical argument made here in response. Gave up?</p>

<p>

Not true. You can go to the authorities with whatever you have without fear of legal action retribution. The authorities have to judge if it is enough to charge a person. Now if you go to the newspapers making claims that are unfounded, you are correct.</p>

<p>As far as Penn being overburdened or not, it really was off the point anyway. Whether they do their own investigating or not, they have every right to use information brought to them.

So now Penn is the police? You just said they were not. Please make up your mind. Making defamatory statements to the public (rather than law enforcements) puts you in civil court with a tort suit.
Penn’s overabundance is completely relevant. They don’t have time for your self-righteous, utopian, moralist b.s. They optimize under constraints and you can’t expect society to make up on the shortfalls of limited resources (imperfect information in this case).</p>

<p>

[QUOTE]
Now you are just being goofy again. Lying on a signed application and therefore commiting fraud is an illegal act. Competition has rules, and breaking the rules has potential consequences.

[QUOTE]

There are rules and there are punishments for breaking them. The fact, however, does not eliminate illegal activity from the cost/benefit analysis. Seriously, take an economics class. You’ll understand the world much better.</p>

<p>

You are going off the deep end again, so I really am done with this thread.

However you would like to justify it, you’re more than welcome to leave.</p>

<p>OP, don’t do it. It’s not worth it.</p>