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: Janice Shell who wrote (10549)	3/14/1998 6:01:00 PM
From: Zoltan!	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

>> Why do you automatically assume she's telling the truth? Evidently she's offered quite a few different versions of her story by now. Casting about for the highest bidder? And why, exactly, DID she have her hand pressed up against his stiff rod? As for Willey, she's gotta be part of the conspiracy, deep deep cover. Thank goodness that Clinton has such a well-earned reputation for honesty and fidelity that no one would question his account. Otherwise he'd be in some trouble by now. To paraphrase, Willey is obviously a "little bit nutty and a little bit slutty". Women do strange things when their husbands commit suicide and they are in financial straits. She must have wanted and needed the big one and none would do the trick better than the First Willy! He must have spurned her and you know, "Hell hath no fury ....". The nation can't wait to hear the actual truth from Carville and Begala tomorrow. Clinton must be right when he says the mean old judge has forbidden him from telling it, so we must rely on his ambassadors of truth. Btw, Good to see that the old Janice is back and in great form! People were getting worried. Duncan

To: Janice Shell who wrote (10549)	3/16/1998 4:29:00 AM
From: Abner Hosmer	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20981

Message 3707799 techstocks.com >>So I guess the part about a female subordinate entering the executive's office to discuss her employment and finding his hands on her boobs and her hand pressed up against his stiff rod isn't the issue that bothers you. Why do you automatically assume she's telling the truth? Evidently she's offered quite a few different versions of her story by now. Casting about for the highest bidder? And why, exactly, DID she have her hand pressed up against his stiff rod?<< Janice, do you see the names "Clinton" or "Willey" anywhere in my post? Didn't you notice that I used the cases of "executive" and "subordinate" when referring to the circumstance and specifically, to "the issue"? Why did you choose to ignore that fact? Do you want to discuss the issues, or are you engaged in a game of "tactics"? re your second question; did you not read the same articles that the rest of us did, that were posted on this thread? For the sake of refreshing your memory, I will quote one of them for you. "He put his hands -- he put my hands on his genitals... It was very unexpected." Once again, why did you choose to ignore this assertion in presenting your question? If the question was simply your way of suggesting that the specifics may have been other than as depicted by Ms. Willey, are you asking me to respond on her behalf? I'd feel that my effort in responding to your questions was time better spent if I detected sincerity on your part in initiating debate. At this point, that is not what I'm sensing at all.