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 : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: i-node who wrote (149998)	8/19/2002 5:25:19 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1569277

but then you add on a twist.......there is a financial liability in question that will effect the well being of ENE's employees. The only difference is who is to benefit if the plaintiff wins. In the hypothetical, the poor, downtrodden employees of Enron benefit; in the Clinton case, trailer park trash Paula Jones benefits. So, in effect, it is okay to lie if you don't like the plaintiff, but you must be truthful if you do. I think I'm getting the picture. You are out of it........you infer that you're comparing a case involving K. lay and M. Lewinsky with Clinton and M. Lewinsky, and then turnaround and say the comparison case is Clinton and Paula Jones of which I know little about the particulars. I don't know whether your twisting and turning of the story in your postings is intentional or not, but its getting old. If you think I am going to spend a lot of time trying to decipher the nature of your current game and the facts as you see them at this particular point, you're wrong. Hiding the publisher of an article, implying one case when you mean another etc are differing levels of deceit. You're wasting my time with this bs and your own. Have a good one!