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 : THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (8084)	4/10/2002 10:20:01 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

Not that I remember, but link me if you'd like. Let me know your thoughts on the NYT article on college kids drinking, or the Drudge report, when you get a chance. And BTW, I think what Lynn Stewart did was wrong, but I'd not call her stupid. She is clearly a very savvy attorney and deliberately did this to test Ashcroft's new rules.

To: Bill who wrote (8084)	4/10/2002 12:07:37 PM
From: E	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 21057

A smirk is not an "appearance" thing as, for example, a harelip would would be; it's a facial expression thing evidencing a state of mind. It is not a physical defect and is a perfectly legitimate thing to note with disapprobation. It would, for example, be improper imo to criticize someone because they were unfortunate enough to have eyes that were slightly crossed; but it would be perfectly proper to note critically that they rolled their eyes expressively at inappropriate moments. From what I've read, I think the woman should be disbarred.