not sure if reproved or admonished would be more apt for this occasion. maybe chided, i dont know.... for failing to act under pretense. the chider, lets call him "the chider" felt a series of lies in the pursuit of a noble end was the best way to tackle a shared problem, and in the end i served up a half truth though did my best to circumvent the lie in the near term. so in a larger sense i became a willing co-conspirator. though it was not for this act that i was admonished but merely for failing to protect the chider from shared responsibility for initiating the set of circumstances that provoked the lie.

now, its hard not to admit that unveiling the co-conspirator made my task of confronting "the mark" with a series of uncomfortable and almost assuredly necessary truths that much easier but as i would not have done so without the chiders prodding, i dont feel as if i had any responsibility to the chider for keeping their identity out of the equation. in fact, it bolstered my claims immensely so to do so would have been irresponsible because the mark really wouldnt have had to question the gravity of their decisions.

the chider, essentially, is not a supporter of inconvenient truths though when they inconvenience him. and since the chider and the mark are presently working together on a project (the chider holding all the power though) there was some ill-will which surfaced when they reconvened soon after the conspiracy was set in motion. but from the sound of it, some future good may have come of it all, as the mark maybe made some sound decisions that will at least in the short term help them along the path towards resolution. more likely, they are just kicking the can down the road a piece but i cant really help them beyond that. ive got my own can to look after.