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 : The Justa & Lars Honors Bob Brinker Investment Club -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Math Junkie who wrote (1018)	9/14/1998 3:30:00 PM
From: Kirk ©	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 15132

Mr Palm... You keep saying "private sex life...." and yet I see evidence of MY employee having inappropriate contact with an underling in a building that I own. When asked to testify under oath, my employee denied this contact. Then the plantif brought in other witnesses to show that this sexual harasment was typical of my employee, my employee again denied the contact with the second underling. Both instances are reason alone to get me fired from my job. The perjury and wagging his finger in my face denying the charges added insult to injury. I don't think any of the other presidents you mentioned were asked under oath if they were having "relations" that could be considered "sexual harrasment" so the argument is moot. THe whole thing boils down pretty simply. Most, including myself, want it to go away with either a censure or resignation so we can get a leader doing what we hired him to do. kirk out

To: Math Junkie who wrote (1018)	9/14/1998 5:28:00 PM
From: Justa Werkenstiff	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 15132

Richard: "I would be happy, no, overjoyed to give this subject a rest, but as long as people endlessly repeat the "impeach Clinton" theme, I feel it is necessary, in the interests of fairness, that the other side of the issue be heard." Oh, don't worry. The subject will be given a rest sooner than you think. And don't bother maintaining that you are responding in the interests of "fairness." Do you roam the threads as the fairness police would do to make sure an opposing view is heard on every thread? Are you the SI independent counsel in charge of fairness? You are responding because you need to express yourself on the issue to let people on this thread know what you think period. That is why everyone posts here. But if you still maintain that you are here for "balance" or "fairness" then please leave. Look at the thread introduction. Nobody with an agenda is wanted here. Your agenda thus far has been to defend Clinton pure and simple. You might call it an agenda of "fairness." I don't care what you call it. Bottom line is that have offered nothing else other than a defense of Clinton. None of your posts thus far on this thread have been market related and none have purported to share anything of value with anyone. You just want to get your two cents in on Clinton. And if you don't think we are being fair about it, tough luck. What we say goes. Look at the thread introduction. There are plenty of other threads for you to patrol in the interest of fairness. Unfortunately, this is not one of them.