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 : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Bill who wrote (893)	8/27/1998 11:15:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Bill, Heres what I said: "this comment has been uttered by many on that crazy Clinton conspiracy thread, usually in the context of "I would never have an affair, if I wanted to have an affair I would decide whether I could afford to divorce my wife" etc. Now this implies a number of things, one of which is that the woman in question has no money, and also that money is more important to these sorts of individuals than happiness." Then you asked me to prove it. I did a text search on the Clinton corruption thread on the word "divorce" and got too much so I had to narrow the search. Then I retreived this post where it clearly says: more than your own personal gratification (and whether you can afford the divorce). And you then tried to convince me that I misunderstood the meaning of this statement. WHETHER YOU CAN AFFORD THE DIVORCE - AM I MISSING SOMETHING HERE? Looks pretty clear to me. I would never make a statement like that - I dont associate money with marriage, it wouldnt even occur to me to come up with something like that. BTW, It is a lot of work reading through all the millions of posts on the Clinton Corruption thread to prove my point to you. There is no real sophisticated search functionality, as I said "divorce" pulls up too much, theres no way to go against only one thread, so for me to be able to pull up even one post that matched the criterion you were looking for is pretty dang amazing. I have no idea why you think I have made a fool of myself on this issue - Im getting a fair amount of support for it, I found a post that confirmed it within 20 mins of you asking for it (from a cohort of yours, I believe), a few right wing posters have agreed with my point... need I say more? I think it is your argument that is weak with the ever popular "you dont understand the meaning of this" defense. Thank you very much sir for your time, Michelle