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: dougjn who wrote (5048)	9/23/1998 4:09:00 PM
From: Bill Grant	Respond to of 67261

Why still talking about the sex? We all know that is not what this is all about. There is a mountain of evidence out ther of a pattern of criminal and immoral behavior, as well as pure incompetence.

To: dougjn who wrote (5048)	9/23/1998 4:31:00 PM
From: j_b	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

<< I think to seek to pursue "sexual harassment" through rooting out every case where someone might possibly have been rewarded in some way in connection with a relationship is going very far afield, and tips way too far in the direction of the sex police.>> Substitute "racism" for "sexual harassment", and you can see one direction this sort of thing can go. Because discrimination is bad (I think we can all agree on that), juries will bend over backwards to not appear to be rascist, allowing for many fishing expeditions similar to what you object to regarding harassment. In those cases, statistics are used to prove the point - it is not even necessary to actually prove discrimination, only the appearance of it. The race card - we've all heard of it. I agree with you regarding extremes and harassment charges. The problem is in drawing the line. Harassment is real, and it's bad. It's like obscenity - I can't define it, but I know it when I see it.