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.

Technology Stocks : How high will Microsoft fly? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (47462)	7/3/2000 9:40:24 AM
From: rudedog	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 74651

Michael - re: "Any GOOD lawyer will tell you that under oath you simply tell the truth" ROFLMAO!!! Whatever lawyer gave you that advice should be shot. Any GOOD Lawyer will tell you that under deposition, you answer the specific question truthfully, but offer NO additional information or elaboration - let opposing counsel dig for what they want. If you don't understand the question, or if it seems too broad to answer succinctly, then ask for clarification. Gates may have taken that to extremes, but the notion that the DOJ deposition was just a bunch of guys getting together to explore the facts is absurd. It was the DOJ looking for any kind of material that they could spin to their advantage.

To: Michael L. Voorhees who wrote (47462)	7/3/2000 11:25:47 AM
From: David Howe	Respond to of 74651

<< Mr. Gates should have been hand-cuffed and led away for the classic perjury exhibited in his anti-trust deposition >> I have the text of his deposition and find no evidence of perjury. I dare you to give word for word evidence on this board of anything remotely resembling perjury. You must be believing the media and not looking at the facts. That's a big mistake and one that many people make. The media likes to say that Bill's testimony had contradictions. They are dramatically exagerating. What's new. Nothing in his testimony can be questioned beyond basic interpretation. There were no direct contradictions unless you twist the words and read between the lines. These are interpretations that are not factual and are not valid. Read the deposition and find me an example where he perjured himself. Good luck. Dave