SI
SI
discoversearch

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"
An SI Board Since December 1998
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
2390 1 0
Emcee:  rodster397 Type:  Unmoderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
1315 Courts definition=C's definition = SI Enough already ! jim kelley-1/5/1999
1314 This matter has been gone over many times by many lawyers and you still do not jim kelley-1/5/1999
1313 <<If you are incapable of any honesty, as you claim, then you are not bepezz-1/5/1999
1312 Sorry -- addressed original reply to wrong person -- ignore this post.The Philosopher-1/5/1999
1311 If you are incapable of any honesty, as you claim, then you are not being honesThe Philosopher-1/5/1999
1310 Huh? Where in Websters do you find sexual relations defined as synonymous witThe Philosopher-1/5/1999
1309 I can't recall -- was the deposition where this definition was used beforeThe Philosopher-1/5/1999
1308 "And while you're at it, quit wasting American's money and litterimeansun-1/5/1999
1307 Darn Right! "We the People" are strong enough to bear the weight of Corky-1/5/1999
1306 But what does it matter what my definition is? Any more than it matters what yDaniel Schuh-1/5/1999
1305 But what is the relevant part of your previous post? I know this is futile, buDaniel Schuh-1/5/1999
1304 << I don't believe you. I believe your honesty shone through for a mopezz-1/5/1999
1303 Sorry, it is the court's definition that counts (see above), not WebsterPeter O'Brien-1/5/1999
1302 Sorry , it is his definition not your definition that counts. Webster's agrjim kelley-1/5/1999
1301 Here is the actual definition provided to Clinton by the court: cnn.com Only Peter O'Brien-1/5/1999
1300 <i>But the trial judge dismissed the case.</i> Actually, all that The Philosopher-1/5/1999
1299 Nobody, least of all me, appointed me "semantician in chief." Quite The Philosopher-1/5/1999
1298 So? One has nothing to do with the other. The trial judge ruled on a motion by Bill-1/5/1999
1297 Of course, the same trial judge who dismissed the case had also ruled earlier tPeter O'Brien-1/5/1999
1296 <i> I don't understand your point here. The Supreme Court unaniDaniel Schuh-1/5/1999
1295 And who exactly appointed you semantician in chief? Ever look in a dictionary,Daniel Schuh-1/5/1999
1294 I don't believe you. I believe your honesty shone through for a moment theThe Philosopher-1/5/1999
1293 <i>Well gee Chris, I guess we disagree a little in regards to "laws&The Philosopher-1/5/1999
1292 Well, you successfully made it through the first of your three paragraphs withoBill-1/5/1999
1291 The Supreme Court didn't overrule the dismissal of the Paula Jones case. DDaniel Schuh-1/5/1999
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2026 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News