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 (11266)	10/26/1998 7:04:00 PM
From: Lizzie Tudor	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

Who me, you are an amazing monument to stupidity. What are you doing on the techstocks website? Own any tech stocks? Im really curious about that. Id like to see the content of your posts on some stock board, what a riot. Everything is way over your head I assume. But back on this post, I guess this is another matter which requires intellect which we all know you do not possess. If I insult Mrs. Rutherford, or whoever, any public figure for that matter, that is acceptable web decorum. Its similiar to when you call Bill Clinton a pervert, or someone calls Hillary ugly etc. When someone becomes a public figure, they open themselves up for criticism. Otoh, if someone puts their personal webpage on their profile on SI, it is NOT acceptable web decorum to keep bringing up their appearance as some sort of classless attack because you arent smart enough to come up with some other defense. It is not that I give a damn about some stupid bible thumping fool like you that lives in Timbuktu and thinks Leroy Neiman is high art. It is because, there are all kinds of people out there who read SI, and the personal options stuff is intended for SI members only. If you cannot deal with acceptable web protocol, because you are confused about computers or you have got bad manners or whatever, then you will be removed from sites like this. Thats all there is to it.

To: Who, me? who wrote (11266)	10/26/1998 7:19:00 PM
From: mrknowitall	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Who, me? <<OT>> - I believe that unless Michelle is a "public person" such as the women you mention, that she should not be subject to the same kind of "open season" personal commentary. Not knowing her, I cannot say, but, then again, I'm not sure what the current legal thinking is on someone being a "public person" because they have published themselves on a web site. JMO Mr. K.