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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (12691)	9/21/1998 4:11:00 PM
From: JF Quinnelly	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

Yeah, ol' Billy was maintaining that some answer of his was legally correct because of some way he defines the word "is". Dr Johnson and Noah Webster are spinning.

To: Jacques Chitte who wrote (12691)	9/22/1998 6:48:00 PM
From: Rambi	Respond to of 71178

Clinton deserves an honorary chair on the Grammar thread. It was a remarkable display of interpretive logogoguey. And he spoke with such sincerity, implying that any sane and reasonable person could do no other than agree with him. Particularly wondrous was his definition of how the recipient of oral sex, being passive, was thus not really engaging in sex. CW was excited. He saw immediately the many possibilities this offers. Of course he and Clinton have a great deal in common. When he was in kindergarten, we received a note saying he had bit a little girl on the arm. WHen confronted, he said he hadn't actually bit her, "I was yawning and she put her arm in my mouth." Now is that the same defense? Perhaps he's been advising Bill. Ammo wants to know does that mean that if he's walking through the kitchen and a brownie jumps into his mouth, that he can swallow with impunity?