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: TigerPaw who wrote (24152)	12/22/1998 11:13:00 PM
From: Bill Grant	Respond to of 67261

>>After all these lessons you turned out a dreadful attack piece. First of all you are ambiguous. The primary declarative of my statement was I will not grieve if the special prosecutor law is repealed. . Your attack had no reference to the secondary declarative If it is instead modified... and yet that was the main purpose. It makes it look as if you are attacking my modest admission that the law is not good. Unless I miss my mark that is not at all the statement which was in your sights. Then comes the against your guy/gal(this should piss off somebody) statement. While I can see the effort to inflame my passions and therefore cloud my judgement...<< You missed my points and intention. My remarks were directed at your statement about a modified IC law with restrictions as to $, scope etc. My point was that a modified law would satisfy no one because the target's supporters would always claim that the limits were too generous and the IC's supporters would claim they were too restrictive. As to the guy/gal thing, that was a dig at the female wing of your cell(constituency group) which no doubt does not like the term "gal" unless they are using it among themselves in some construction such as "You go,gal!" (ggg) I guess then it would be OK.