lisa,
I don't see how you could infer that I am "vilifying" Betty Currie "because she is a secretary," nor am I "upholding her" to anything! Lisa, now that IS a slick sleight of hand, rabbit-out-of-a-hat "interpretation" of my posts.
Heavens, but I would never vilify a secretary, having myself been intermittently employed in that time-honored and noble profession. I did post that secretary by definition is a keeper of secrets, and I personally subscribe to that premise and that exacting standard of professionalism. Were I to find myself in the employ of someone to whom I could not afford this expected degree of allegiance, I would seek employment elsewhere. However, short of breaking a definable law, the "secrets" learned during that period of employment would remain safe with me.
BTW, I am probably blessed with the slowest modem on this thread. Thus, pulling up the Drudge Report can be a religious experience. Therefore, I did not read what you referred to in your post to me and, obviously, cannot comment.
I did go back and read the ten or so posts posted while I was posting this. Yes, the word "material" as in material facts, or facts of a material nature, is very important to keep in mind throughout all of this. So far, I've not heard or read anything I would consider to be facts of a "material" nature in this context.
Holly |
