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 : Clinton's Scandals: Is this corruption the worst ever? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: greenspirit who wrote (8465)	10/17/1998 11:13:00 PM
From: pezz	Respond to of 13994

<<that's very clever how you discussed me instead of the accounts of the incidents>> Is that so? Well lets go to the video tape. You...witnesses saw Kathleen Wiley leave the oval office shaken and disturbed.Me..,The only witness that saw KW leave the oval office that I heard of was Linda Tripp.Her description was anything but shaken and disturbed. Please name some of these witness.You...She reported the incident right away.Me...The only person thatI heard KW report this to was a friend that she asked to lie about the incident.[these were the reasons that the press has not given much credence to kw ]As you well know I could go on and on.The sad thing is that is that you only read my criticism of you .Sorry about that but I wasn't to pleased about implied insults. Thank's for the advice about the sand.I'll keep that in mind. Hope you do to. pez

To: greenspirit who wrote (8465)	10/18/1998 3:00:00 AM
From: Aaron Cooperband	Respond to of 13994

Michael - I though you might like this: ______________ Dad: Son, come in here, we need to talk. Son: What's up, Dad? Dad: There's a scratch down the side of the car. Did you do it? Son: I don't believe, if I understand the definition of "scratch the car," that I can say, truthfully, that I scratched the car. Dad: Well, it wasn't there yesterday, and you drove the car last night, and no one else has driven it since. How can you explain the scratch? Son: Well, as I've said before, I have no recollection of scratching the car. While it is true that I did take the car out last night, I did not scratch it. Dad: But your sister told me she saw you back the car against the mailbox at the end of the driveway, heard a loud scraping sound, saw you get out to examine the car, and then drive away. So again I'll ask you, yes or no, did you scratch the car? Son: Oh, you mean you think you have evidence to prove that I scratched it. Well, you see, I understood you to mean did "I" scratch the car. I stand by my earlier statement, that I did not scratch the car. Dad: Are you trying to tell me you didn't drive the car into the mailbox? Son: Well, you see sir, I was trying to drive the car into the street. I mishandled the steering of the car, and it resulted in direct contact with the mailbox, though that was clearly not my intent. Dad: So you are saying that you did hit the mailbox? Son: No sir, that's not my statement. I'll refer you back to my original statement that I did not scratch the car. Dad: But the car did hit the mailbox, and the car did get scratched as a result of the contact? Son: Well, yes, I suppose you could categorize it that way. Dad: So you lied to me when you said you did not scratch the car? Son: No. No, that is not correct. Your question was "Did I scratch the car?" From a strict legal definition, as I understood the meaning of that sentence, I did not scratch the car... the mailbox did... I was merely present when the scratching occurred. So my answer of "No" when you asked "Did I scratch the car" was legally correct, although I did not volunteer information. Dad: Where did you learn to talk like a complete idiot? Son: From the President of the United States.