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.

Pastimes : Impeachment=" Insult to all Voters" -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (1229)	1/4/1999 4:55:00 PM
From: sea_biscuit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

And talking about Henry Hyde, I wonder if he has the balls to say that he had no more "youthful indiscretions" after the one he started at age 41! :-)

To: Daniel Schuh who wrote (1229)	1/4/1999 9:22:00 PM
From: Peter O'Brien	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 2390

I thought private activity wasn't supposed to matter..., so why are you criticizing Henry Hyde? Was Henry Hyde ever accused of sexual harassment? Was Henry Hyde ever asked to testify under oath? In general, do you think the enforcement of sexual harassment laws is important? In general, do you agree with the Federal Rules of Evidence which allow the plaintiff in a sexual harassment case to discover a defendant's sexual history (even consensual history) with others in the workplace? And, just who do you think it was that signed the law in 1994 which changed the Federal Rules of Evidence to favor the plaintiff in such a discovery? (I know that 4 years ago must seem like ancient history to certain people with very short memories. It was back when the Democratic Party actually thought that the enforcement of sexual harassment laws was important.)