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 : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Grainne who wrote (31138)	2/19/1999 2:14:00 AM
From: Krowbar	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 108807

Christine, I will only agree that the Supreme Court ruling that allowed the Jones case to proceed was not a good idea. It set bad precedent. There was no compelling reason why it needed to be dealt with promptly other than to undo the election of Clinton. After all, didn't she wait for a couple of years after the alleged incident to press charges? Indeed today's paper reports that Judge Wright might pursue contempt charges against Clinton. I have no problem with that if it is done after he serves his term. You keep portraying the Jones encounter as sexual harassment. Doesn't that imply repeated actions against Jones, and didn't I understand it to be one incident that lasted a couple minutes? If you were asked up to a motel room would you have expected a job interview? If anything he was guilty of being kind of crude in his sexual advances, but aren't a lot of men? Christine, surely by now you must know that a lot of men think with their dicks, and when they get an erection it steals blood from their brains. I can see signs of the Christian right getting to you, Christine. I forbid you to read "Ask God" for one month. Del