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: Bill who wrote (590993)	7/15/2004 12:47:36 PM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Talk to E about her posts. I don't ask you to defend your friend's. (not that you could) :-)

To: Bill who wrote (590993)	7/15/2004 7:09:01 PM
From: E	Respond to of 769670

And I find it disturbing that you or E would propagate this kind of trash. (Of course you wouldn't remember Chelsea's drunken exploits in England. She's a Dem daughter!) Bill: I am going to point out two things about this inexcusable post of yours. 1) You have posted the above being fully aware that my links to the Bush daughter's behavior was in direct response to Republican (Watson and others) posts of photos of Kerry's daughter wearing an apparently transparent gown to the Cannes Film Festival, a photograph that was circulating to the accompaniment of much glee and ridicule on SI (and all over the RW net). 2) You yourself just made a nasty, entirely gratuitous crack about a presidential daughter, one who was subjected at the age of 14 to public ridicule by Limbaugh and ilk for not being pretty ("the White House dog"). You made another crack, too, referring to a possible "critiqe" of Chelsea, as if you knew she had engaged in some outrageous, immoral behavior similar to the behavior illustrated in the Bush daughter 'bloid photos. Bill: Why did you make a nasty crack about a presidential daughter, Chelsea Clinton, today? Why did omit the fact that the photos I posted of the Bush daughters were posted only in response to photos and ridicule of the Kerry daughter? It was very misleading of you to omit that fact, wasn't it, Bill? At the time the Bush photos were published, I of course made no cracks about them at all, feeling only sympathy for the Bushes for their embarrassment and the family's lack of privacy. BTW, I wrote "apparently transparent" re the dress because though it transparent, or translucent, in the photograph, Watson (and others) explained later that the Kerry daughter's dress was probably not transparent under ordinary light, but only when the photographer's lights captured the image. He explained the light-phenomenon technically, and was much amused by it.