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: Original Mad Dog who wrote (18159)	7/24/2002 7:56:09 AM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 21057

You can object to the question, but if it's asked and you can't get the question thrown out, then you either tell the truth or commit a felony. Any other message is an invitation to all witnesses to make it up whenever they are offended by the question. Let me start out by saying clearly that I'm not disagreeing with you. In the final analysis, you tell the truth under oath. However, I have a lot of sympathy for people who are asked inappropriate questions under oath. I've been asked about my sex life under oath when it was clear, to me, that it was out of line. I can't begin to tell you the outrage I felt. I've posted about this experience before. The situation I was in was that I was a manager in an office where there was an EEO complaint about a hiring decision. I had no involvement in the hiring decision. The EEO folks used the complaint to go on a fishing expedition, including fishing for sexual hanky panky, even though the allegation was one of race and had nothing to do with sex. Every manager in the office was asked under oath if he or she had EVER had sexual relations with ANYONE who had EVER been employed anywhere in the ENTIRE FEDERAL AGENCY (which shall remain unnamed). I answered no. I, fortunately, was able to do so truthfully to the best of my knowledge. I recall a lot of discussion among us "victims" about the relative merits of lying or telling the truth. I understand completely how people can think it's OK to lie when you are asked entirely inappropriate personal questions that are none of anyone's business. This experience has given me some ability to relate to how Clinton reacted by lying initially. I'm not condoning his lying about it under oath, as I said earlier, but I can relate to his sense of outrage at the overzealousness and intrusion of the prosecutors.

To: Original Mad Dog who wrote (18159)	7/24/2002 9:32:47 AM
From: Dayuhan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

When we do it under oath, it's called perjury. You can object to the question, but if it's asked and you can't get the question thrown out, then you either tell the truth or commit a felony. Any other message is an invitation to all witnesses to make it up whenever they are offended by the question. Witnesses with a certain level of political stature are generally allowed to get away with it. That may be a good precedent or a bad one, but it is the precedent. Of course the guy lied, and of course that was bad. I see that more as par for the course than as a new level of moral rot. When you're used to lying at the level of the Tonkin Gulf incident, Iran-Contra, or any number of others, it's hard to get fired up over a denial of a blow job. That's true for me, at least. It may not be so for others.