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 (19603)	8/22/2002 9:45:23 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 21057

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. A while back, I posted to you my personal experiences with such matters. I agree with you that incidents of sexual harassment should be investigated. There's a difference between investigation and a witch hunt or a holy war. I personally experienced such a campaign and have seen how wild-eyed "investigators" can get when sex is the subject. With regard to the context in this case, I can relate to Clinton's reaction. That does not excuse anything he did, I recognize. With regard to his treatment of women, he is a misogynist and worse. However, his prosecutors showed no more respect for the system and principles than he. This situation is a complicated one and the precise balance hard to find. I may be unduly swayed by the anger I still remember from my personal experiences. I know, though, that is natural and valid to get your back up when faced with prosecutors who are compromised by prurient interests.