Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: E who wrote (9283)	11/21/1999 9:17:00 AM
From: Bill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

If you recall, I stated I would be happy to answer every one of your questions, but prefer to address one issue at a time. But as the day wore on, it seemed to me that you were less interested in a response to your questions than you were with making the point that nobody would answer them - the implication being that we were all homophobes, just like GWB. Of course, I reject both implications as totally false. If I have mischaracterized your intent and tactics, please let me know. I would be happy to discuss the real issues with a clean sheet of paper.

To: E who wrote (9283)	11/22/1999 12:02:00 AM
From: Neocon	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

I am not implying that you are lying. I am supposing that you would not protect the person if he were clearly out of the closet, and wondering how you can state so confidently that this was an issue for Bush.... The mention of it was at the end of my answers to your "quiz". The quizzicalness was the result of your answer. I had assumed that you would address it. The quizzicalness was expressed in the post where I erroneously said you had not responded to my question, erroneous since I had not formulated it as such.... I would be interested in an explanation of why you characterize Bush as having knowingly appointed a homosexual, and I would certainly not be interested in "outing" him..... I do not know what I failed to answer. I do know that there were some who preferred not to get into hypotheticals, but asked for more information on a factual assertion from you without getting much.... I was referring not to anyone who posted on the thread, but to those on with me at that time, i.e. Bill Vaughn and JLA. Truedog can speak for himself on this issue.... Actually, I will let their judgment prevail. At this point, regretting having answered you myself, how can I ask them to?