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: Who, me? who wrote (8849)	10/10/1998 6:23:00 PM
From: Borzou Daragahi	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 67261

Who, Me?: I think there's a difference between hurling insults at someone outside of the discussion or at a public figure in the mediasphere and insulting someone on this thread you're having a discussion with. For example, the Clinton-haters here are constantly spewing venom at the president. As have I. (i once compared him in a post here to a fast-talking Times Square pimp.) No one will argue with you there. But I think people cross the line, and abuse their anonymity, when they talk nasty to each other. It's just undignified, juvenile and tasteless.

To: Who, me? who wrote (8849)	10/10/1998 6:25:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Who Me, you and I are very far apart on how we see things. I feel that we can sit here all day and comment, negatively or positively, on media figures, Clinton, Debi Coleman, Mrs. Rutherford Institute, Hillary etc. It doesnt matter what you say about them - they are public figures and this is a debate forum. When you call President Clinton, who btw is the President and deserves much more respect than the others I mentioned above, jmo, a pervert, I might get annoyed but thats about it. I dont take offense and then take a jab at you personally. But you seem to think its ok for you to do that. What is your problem with this Mrs. Rutherford? She was on 60 minutes and I didnt like what I saw. I thought she presented herself as unintelligent, stupid even. My roommates felt the same. Somehow you take this comment which is my opinion and use that to justify your classless 'sleeping my way to the top' post (oh btw in a prior post you insinuated that I was a liar regrading my profession I guess youve changed your tune there huh?). Well we disagree Who, Me. But let me tell you that whatever you say to me has no effect, because I have no respect for you, but you knew that. I was simply defending Bob or Dan or anyones negativity towards you because I dont think you deserve any more respect or class than you dole out - which isnt much.

To: Who, me? who wrote (8849)	10/10/1998 6:49:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Respond to of 67261

Who Me, for the last time I feel the need to clarify this point about Debi Coleman here, not for you really but for the benefit of the others. Debi Coleman btw was chosen by Apple mgmt as the first woman to be on the board of a fortune 500 company. It started with this post where you gave your opinion of the first woman to be on the board of a Fortune 500 company and you made reference to her negative appearance and insinuated that something else must have been involved with her getting the position. I thought everyone knew this story and I dont think I went into enough detail. I am only reiterating stuff Ive read btw, I never saw Debi etc because she was before my time. I do know shes only about 45 now and has faded into oblivion which tells you something. The point with regards to her is, the mgmt of Apple didnt really want anybody good in that slot. They really didnt like women.... they just wanted the publicity of the first woman on their board. So, they deliberately chose a below average graduate of Stanford who they could boss around, and also someone who had an unfeminine appearance because they really didnt want a woman there, it was all a big charade. The point was not that somebody liked overweight women etc. the point is they chose someone who had so many flaws for that tremendous opportunity that you have to wonder why they made the choice they did. This in contrast to Ellison who always seems to pick the most exceptional people he can find - just an observation. And those ex-Oracle execs have really delivered in building the companies out here vs. Debi who has all but disappeared. MH