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 : Rambus (RMBS) - Eagle or Penguin -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Dave B who wrote (61713)	11/22/2000 2:37:44 PM
From: jim kelley	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

I guess your position is that "nooners" in your camper in the employee parking lot are subject to government probes.<G>

To: Dave B who wrote (61713)	11/22/2000 3:08:39 PM
From: Dr. Id	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Personally, I don't believe ethics should change depending on the party of the accused. Exactly. Which is why those impeachment hearings were so ludicrous. Henry Hyde, the Chairman, had a child as a product of an extramaritial affair. Several other Republicans on that committee had affairs, not to mention whatever was in Newt Gingrich's closet. The hypocrisy of BOTH parties is disgusting. Dr.Id@justwantmyRMBStogobackup.com

To: Dave B who wrote (61713)	11/22/2000 4:03:25 PM
From: SBHX	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave B, Personally, I think it only takes someone who has a close friend or family member (perhaps a daughter) as a victim in a sexual harassment suit to truly understand why this activity cannot be condoned regardless of what a good job the guy is doing for the shareholders or how good the chief executive is for the economy. Lying under oath and the sanctity of the oath in a courtroom to the justice system is the legal aspect of the case that the lawyers will fight over endlessly. But common people like me understand that a boss cannot subject an employee under such a reporting structure to such treatment --- it is an unequal exploitative stance and indefensible no matter who does it. I still wonder why so many members of the press who will eagerly crucify any Fortune 500 company unfortunate enough to have an executive caught in a similar situation, yet stayed non-committal about this case. Deep down inside, many of us, regardless of our depth of altruism, are still hypocrites capable of double standards, if the conditions are right. In all fairness, I think the voracity of how the GOP went after him, immediately caused a knee jerk reaction in many to defend him at all cost, even if they have to swallow their convictions and weep in the still of the night. But when all is over with, who among his defenders will be willing to have him over for a sleepover in the cottage? Who will still think of him fondly as a close personal friend? SbH

To: Dave B who wrote (61713)	11/22/2000 10:09:23 PM
From: Bilow	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Hi Dave B; Re sex in the workplace. There's a rather famous engineer I've heard about who got fired at the lazy B after being seen servicing himself in the "privacy" of his automobile in the (huge) parking lot. So I'm not so sure that getting serviced by another at the highest desk in the country is not grounds for dismissal also. There is no way that I could ever hope to keep my job if I were found doing such activity during work hours. I'd be lucky to keep it if I were found taking advantage of those beneath me on my own private time. What the President did in his office to that young victim of his was unkind, immoral, and unwise, but not illegal. For a worker at a private company, it would mean immediate dismissal. The fact that a government worker might be able to get away with that sort of BS is a sad comment on our country, not an indication that the president was kind, moral or wise. But the high crime was perjury, and for this I would definitely get my peepee whacked. So why shouldn't he? What's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and no one is above the law. (Unless they have massive political support from the more corrupt political party.) In this case, the applicable law is perjury, and it is definitely a high crime. It burns me up just to think about it. At this time, I think we can look forward to a Gore presidency. The bad news is that he is not a sexual pervert and (near) child molester. Instead, at least if you take what he has written at face value, he wants to save us from environmental destruction. I still remember what happened to drug stocks when the Clintons were first elected. That was before they drifted into a life of easy pleasures, and still had some ideals to fulfill. Fortunately, they didn't get what they wanted, but it sure put a dent in a lot of stocks. -- Carl

To: Dave B who wrote (61713)	11/23/2000 1:02:50 PM
From: Sam P.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 93625

Dave, First there was never a real case of sexual harrassment,only consensual sex.This was blown up by the opportunistic Republicans and money driven Paula Jones.The case would never have seen the light of day if it were not for the political motivations of the wild eyed right wing hypocrits.The evidense for this hypocrisy can be most readily seen in ex-speakers of the house Livingston and Gingrich.None of these pious Republicans were standing on the pulpit decrying the morals and impropriety of these pillars of conservatism.Double standards..Nah