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 : Ask John Galt... -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (3686)	2/18/1998 12:14:00 PM
From: Ignacio Mosqueira	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4006

Christine, you tell me how it is and I tell you how it should be. I agree that corporations react to lawsuits. I do not propose to get rid of lawsuits. Harassment implies unwanted persistence. The law should make knowledge of such distate a necessary condition for the charge. If a co-worker is hurt by the sexual relationship he/she has a case on the grounds of unfair discrimination not sex on the job. If a ceo calls a worker and bares himself then that is indecent exposure and depending on the circumstances stalking or the like. If a ceo has sex with an employee then that, by itself, is nothing at all.

To: Grainne who wrote (3686)	2/18/1998 12:23:00 PM
From: Ignacio Mosqueira	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 4006

Christine, as it is it ain't working. This is not fair law either for Clinton or Clarence Thomas. Both did what they are accused of and had to lie at the risk of losing their careers most unfairly. I do not care if Thomas had more power than Anita Hill or not. If his behavior displeased her then she needs to say so. If he persists then and only then is there a case to be made. I know plenty of women who are quite vulgar and forward and nobody accuses them of anything even if they have power (we all have power). Being vulgar is not a crime. How simple can that be Christine?