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: Thomas A Watson who wrote (260887)	6/4/2002 4:19:34 PM
From: DuckTapeSunroof	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

Tom, Tom, Tom... you've lost it. I asked for a reply showing me what I had posted that was a 'lie' - and you replied with at least some links... which is a better effort than many here on this thread would make, but I fail to see what your complaint is. Isn't 'lying under oath' considered perjury anymore? Or, by your definition, must one be convicted of such before you admit the possibility that perjury has occurred? Isn't it within the realm of possibility to believe that a perjurer might settle a case (and seal the records to avoid public discomfort) exactly to AVOID a likely perjury charge... and perhaps conviction? And, what exactly is this comment of yours about: "If Buddy McKee choose to declare others have lied and it's all fabrication then Buddy McKee is the liar"? >>> It doesn't even make any sense, for Christ's sake! >>> And, as a followup to that thought, I'm not even sure that I've said anyone was a liar... as a rule of thumb, I almost never use that phrase (it being so difficult to determine the amount of lies necessary to make someone a liar), although undoubtedly I've said that various statements were false, or unproven. In every case where I've done so, I've supplied evidence so that thoughtful people may make their own judgements. >>> Can you do no less?