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 : Did Slick Boink Monica? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5321)	2/8/1998 4:17:00 PM
From: flickerful	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

bravissima. ps... maybe a bit harsh on lisa, however.

To: Lady Lurksalot who wrote (5321)	2/8/1998 5:30:00 PM
From: Grainne	Respond to of 20981

Holly, what your post does, with its urls, is show once again that you write about things without posting any reputable research whatsoever, and that for some time you have been insinuating that I am playing dumb or misinterpreting your posts, without offering any proof, when I have not been. What on earth motive would I have for doing that? It makes no sense at all. Thanks, incidentally, for reposting your statement about the tobacco companies, which you see as benevolent. I was looking for it, but couldn't find it: "As for the tobacco companies using scientific means to boost the nicotine content in cigarettes, I see nothing sinister in a business working to improve its product. The more nicotine in a cigarette, the less cigarettes most smokers will smoke. What's so sinister about that?" One fact is that this is ILLEGAL under U.S. law, just like it would be if a secretary evaded truthful testimony under oath. While you are certainly entitled to believe this, it could certainly be construed as seemingly amoral. I think the real problem here is that you expect everyone to agree with you, and when they bring up points which contradict your belief system, you cast aspersions on their motives. Anyone can post here, but it really should be about Billy and Monica, and I really think it would be more appropriate to drop this discussion, or take it over to Feelings, so that we can stop disrupting the fun here, which certainly was not my intention. The fact that you are a defender of Clinton without any proof whatsoever, call this whole sorry episode in his presidency "much ado about nothing", but have said you do not plan to read about it or find out any facts whatsoever, certainly qualifies you for full membership in the club of Clinton apologists on this thread. But to harshly criticize my views or insinuate that only certain people are welcome on threads, and to do so rudely as well, certainly would tend to support my argument that you get defensive and mean when someone disagrees with you, even though they are simply disagreeing with statements you have made, and an example would be the ones about secretaries keeping secrets.