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 : Don't Ask Rambi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: James F. Hopkins who wrote (17566)	2/11/1999 1:37:00 PM
From: Ilaine	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71178

>>>>>I am stuck for some words or a correct phrase that has some legalese about it ; to describe a sort of "understanding" arrived at by inflections, a sort of curved way of arriving at an understanding between two parties about an illicit act, that falls just short of legal collusion, as it leaves the door open for both parties to actually repeat what was said, but with out the inflections you could not say they had an "understanding", like a clandestine agreement that's not spelled out, yet it's understood by both parties<<<<< I know what you mean, but I don't know what it is called, either. It doesn't just happen with clandestine agreements, nor collusion, it's just a way of speaking and understanding without actually having to say exactly what you mean. Maybe "tacit"? "Implicit"? It's not necessarily a bad thing, some of my best conversations are like that, where you speak at multiple levels, it's a higher form of communication, sometime. In fact, I prefer not to have to spell things out. But yes, I suppose that the conversation between Bill and Monica about filing her affidavit was like that. He didn't have to tell her to file a false affidavit, it was implicit. ********** Re: Monica. I was thinking about her this morning, I watched "Hardball" yesterday, I am probably more politically conservative than you, I guess, Chris Matthews had Bill Bennett on, who said that one of the worst things Clinton did was, after he used Monica, he was ready to destroy her if it would help himself. I think Monica did it to herself. I think the "stalker" thing, while unfair in one sense, is accurate in another sense. There is a set of "rules" for philanderers and adulterers, that "everyone knows," that if one party doesn't want to continue then the other party has no rights, and must give it up. Make a clean break. That was part of the plot of "Fatal Attraction," Glenn Close did not want to accept it when Michael Douglas made a clean break. She should not have yadda-yadda'd to her friends about him. I guess it is hard not to brag on a sexual relationship with the President, but telling everyone about your sexual relationship with a married man is tacky. Monica tried to leverage the relationship into a job, which is blackmail, in my opinion. It's indefensible. She had already been offered a job at the U.N., but she turned it down. She made signing the false affidavit into a quid pro quo for a job she liked more, and although Clinton clearly should not have asked for a false affidavit, she should not have used blackmail on him. I don't know what one should expect from a relationship with a married man, but it's just not going to be like dating a guy who is available. She already had a long term relationship with a married man, and an authority figure, her teacher. So I would suspect that she has unresolved issues with her father and her mother, who are divorced.