SI
SI
discoversearch

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: Lazarus_Long who wrote (8175)4/10/2002 1:18:03 PM
From: Poet  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Hey! No invoking Christ (much less using His middle initial) unless you believe in Him!

I call.



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (8175)4/10/2002 1:19:57 PM
From: jcky  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
< Is a smirk now unconstitutional? >

Yes. <smirk>



To: Lazarus_Long who wrote (8175)4/10/2002 2:35:45 PM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 21057
 
Uh, I believe Bill raised the smirk issue, implying that a smirk was a physical or neurological problem. A sort of tic.

My point was that it was a facial expression.

This is what my dictionary says about a smirk. It doesn't mention unconstitutional. (Ah, you ask so little! It's quite touching, really!)

smirk:

to smile in an affected or conceited manner; to smile with affected complaisance; to simper.


HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News