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: greenspirit who wrote (150356)	6/3/2001 2:05:29 AM
From: Thomas A Watson	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Ah well the truly stupid also don't know that silence is golden. Especially when the grape jelly has been stolen and you have purple sticky hands and a purple ring around your mouth. LOL. Learned response from el stupido supremo who insisted on an apology for not have sex with that woman. What are the vacant liberal minds cumming to. Bush White House Confirms Details of Clinton Vandalism. newsmax.com Sunday June 3, 2001; 12:37 a.m. EDT Bush White House Confirms Details of Clinton Vandalism In response to Democrat demands for an apology over allegedly false charges that Clinton administration staffers had damaged White House property while departing in January, the Bush administration has released a list of the vandalized property. Destruction of government property by Clinton staffers included 75 phones that had been "tampered with," including ten where the lines had been cut, the Bush White House said. Twenty percent of the desks in the Eisenhower Office complex had been overturned by Clinton staffers. Obscene graffiti was discovered by Bush staffers in six offices. A 20-inch-wide presidential seal had been ripped off a wall. 100 computer keyboards had been rendered inoperable by the Clinton vandals. Pornography was left behind in White House photocopiers. Trash was spilled throughout the White House counsel's office, along with other assorted random damage. White House spokesman Ari Fleischer catalogued the destruction for Sunday's Washington Post, but did not affix a dollar value to the damage. "The White House will defend itself and the career employees," Fleischer told the Post. "We tried to be gracious, but the last administration would not take graciousness," he added, saying that claims Bush staffers had lied about the incident forced him to respond. "By getting the information out, we hope to put an end to this, so everyone can go on with the policy and business of the government." In April inspectors for the GAO said they found no unusual damage done by the previous administration, but later admitted their investigation included only damage to office space and not office equipment. ............... tom watson tosiwmee

To: greenspirit who wrote (150356)	6/3/2001 10:29:51 AM
From: E	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

<<Oh my, you're now having a tizzy because of one letter <s> added to a word??>> Oh my, now asking for proof that i issued threats is 'having a tizzy'? Michael, you know what? Plural is a concept, not a letter. Like, "more than one threat," for example, contains the concept, but not the letter. Concept. Implying more than one. <<If you interpreted the S to mean I implied multiple threats in the past, than I am truly sorry E. >> Now we're getting somewhere! You say you never intended those words "E, you should realize by now your threats are completely meaningless to me" to imply I had issued threats! Excellent progress, Michael. Now to talk about whether I threatened ProLife. You, not I, raised the issue, so you must have meant to imply it. Of course, perhaps you didn't! ProLife posted a lie. I called him on it. He continued to post it. Then he had the audacity to post a science URL that further refuted his lie-- but, since he didn't understand this, he wrote, "Any questions, Class?," implying that the URL substantiated the lie. He also wrote to me: "You have shown nothing to be a lie. But I do understand that one in your position will require you to continue your tapping." But I had, in fact, shown it to be a lie. So I wrote, in response to "Any questions, Class?", "YES! YES! I have a question, Professor!" And in response to: "You have shown nothing to be a lie. But I do understand that one in your position will require you to continue your tapping," I wrote, "Oh, I will "keep tapping"! -- Until you produce the evidence... or admit it was a lie you posted and a lie your movement has been promulgating for years. I want to see the evidence, or I want you to try to stop it... " So your position would appear to be that to assure someone who is repeatedly promulgating a big lie and continues to defend the lie, that you will continue to "tap," -- using his own word for refute the lie-- is a "threat." I can see why you might feel threatened by the truth. Still, that's a different and special meaning of the word "threat," i believe. You guys just hate it when you're caught out in lies. Wiggle wiggle squirm squirm.

To: greenspirit who wrote (150356)	6/3/2001 10:43:22 AM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

Michael, maybe you can understand it this way: A threat is "an expression of an intention to inflict injury on another." What I did is say that if he continued to lie after I had proved it was a lie, i would continue to tell the truth. Correcting a repeated lie (or getting a lying implication retracted in some cases) is not, ordinarily, what is called "inflicting an injury." It's called telling the truth. Of course there's an argument for its being called sport, too. hehe. Going out for waffles now. Speaking of waffles, i look forward to seeing your reply on my return.