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.

Pastimes : All Clowns Must Be Destroyed -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Ilaine who wrote (37737)	6/4/2000 11:55:00 PM
From: Voltaire	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42523

You could be right. v

To: Ilaine who wrote (37737)	6/5/2000 1:17:00 AM
From: Cactus Jack	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42523

CB, You profess to be a lawyer, and I am as well. Recognizing that you are not a fan of Voltaire, can you nevertheless explain to me how the words " . . . needs about a THREE DAY ROMP but not with me" suggests that she "should be raped, or at least made the subject of involuntary intercourse"? The fact that he referred to the aforementioned newscaster as a "bit--" who "loves to wallow in the negative" does not suggest "rape" or "involuntary intercourse". I believe the suggestion was that her getting laid might cause her to lighten up. Why does that suggest rape? That argument wouldn't get past a directed verdict and you know it. Again, why call him a "sadistic creep with zero credibility" for that statement? Your own credibility was diminished with that gross overreaction, in my opinion. You are joined, by the way, by KISS who accused him of the same thing (but we expect far less from KISS). My question has nothing to do with bullish or bearish outlooks on the market, but applies more to the honest use of words. Care to reconsider?