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: Lane3 who wrote (19602)	8/22/2002 9:22:03 AM
From: Original Mad Dog	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 21057

I absolutely disagree. I supervise people in my work. If I harass them, my company had damn well better start asking questions about my sex life. If they don't, they are being derelict in their duty to create a workplace that women can work in free of harassment. Clinton was the head of the state government workplace in Arkansas and then the federal government executive branch workplace. He allegedly made promises to Ms. Jones about a job in that workplace in Arkansas, and with Ms. Lewinsky an unwanted transfer of employment took place after (or was it during?) her liaison with the President. The questions should have been asked. If they had not been asked, then you might as well give men (especially those in charge) free reign to harass women at work 24/7.

To: Lane3 who wrote (19602)	8/22/2002 10:15:48 AM
From: jlallen	Respond to of 21057

Utter baloney. He was caught by a law he signed into existence. He exercised all his legal options to avoid answering and lost. He was obligated to answer truthfully and he chose to commit perjury. Period.

To: Lane3 who wrote (19602)	8/22/2002 10:58:10 AM
From: Bill	Respond to of 21057

But the matter was about harassment, not Clinton's sex life. Do you think all discovery regarding a perpetrator's "sex life" should be excluded from judicial proceedings in rape and harassment cases?