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: Charles Hughes who wrote (11862)	10/31/1998 1:04:00 PM
From: jlallen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Perjury is a legal term. I'm sure you can find that one in your search. "Serial" is used as a modifier to indicate I believe that Mr. Clinton (and his faithful minions, including the First "Lady") is fond of telling batches of whoppers at one time, one after the other. Surely you can figure that out. Just peruse the President's GJ testimony or depo in the Jones case. Read the transcript of Hillary's famous "vast right wing conspiracy" interview. Serial lies in Hillary's case, serial perjury in Bubba's. With respect to the "anonymous right wing posters", can you prove that someone complained to SI about the "names awful liberals were calling them"? Feel free to call me all the names you like without fear of reprisal from SI via any complaint from me. I heard from the poster who is apparently the subject of your comment. The way I understand the exchange to have occurred, a poster asked for a clarification of the "Terms of Use" in responding to several posts which had been made to the individual. The poster wanted to know if he/she could use the same sort of language and terms without fear of being banned. The poster did not ask SI police to discipline the offending individual. That is IMO, a little different situation. You have nice day. JLA

To: Charles Hughes who wrote (11862)	11/1/1998 9:07:00 AM
From: Zoltan!	Respond to of 67261

>>If serial perjury is indeed a different sort of crime, which I doubt, the law having some logic to it that you seem not to share, I expect you will be able to document that. >>If serial perjury is indeed a different sort of crime, which I doubt, the law having some logic to it that you seem not to share, I expect you will be able to document that. Read it again, oh feckless one. Message 6222244 No, they are not different crimes as you imply. As I made clear to the intelligent 99%, "serial perjury" is a useful term in the law since it distinguishes a single act of perjury from many acts of perjury, hence from a single criminal charge from what can be many charges, the latter being more serious, at least for the 99%. Are you impervious to thought and knowledge unlike the other 99%? Your clueless "act" fails to divert or impress. >>Zoltan, you incredible fool.<< Incredible, perhaps. But fool? I cannot claim what is so rightfully yours. >> Of course serial is the opposite of parallel or simultaneous. That is the point. I didn't say that you claimed he did anything in parallel, I pointed out that you are an idiot. I did this by noting that humans can speak only serially. Duh. You keep calling him a serial liar, as though this were something like being a serial killer.<< Your only point is on your head, as I shall detail below. Now your defense is that you merely specialize in non sequiturs in your nonsensical allusions to "parallel" and "simultaneous" perjury. Why? Because "serial perjury" is a real distinction regularly used in the law and very readily distinguishable to any laymen with even rudimentary intelligence. >>You keep calling him a serial liar, as though this were something like being a serial killer. Unfortunately, unlike the other 99% of the thread who were clever enough to grasp this point, you don't get it. Calling him a serial liar is like calling you a serial imbecile, when just imbecile is perfectly accurate and free of redundancy. << Gee, in your case there is little room for doubt. However, the clever 99% have even more reason to laugh at you now. Apparently your claim is that Clinton always lies, so it's redundant to accuse him of compounding one lie with a series of others. Little wonder I had ignored your previous non sequiturs, I had presumed that you were a Clinton defender! The actual term I used is "serial perjury or perjuries", not "serial liar" as you, well lie. The former are used in the law. That is a distinction made to show a greater offense than a single perjury - because in the law each perjury in the series is an additional offense. If you had only read you own posts you would have seen that you had originally quoted me correctly: Message 6158479 Message 6182125 >>I pointed out that you are an idiot.<< No, you drove home the point like a boomerang. Words have meaning, some day you might be able to understand, like the other 99% that are laughing at you. Keep digging, and have another belt, Cheers man.