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
THE SLIGHTLY MODERATED BOXING RING
An SI Board Since February 2002
Posts SubjectMarks Bans
21057 16 0
Emcee:  Peter Dierks Type:  Moderated
Introduction Compact
Previous 25 | Next 25 | View Recent | Post Message
Go to reply# or date (mm/dd/yy):
ReplyMessage PreviewFromRecsPosted
19632<i>I think I would refuse to answer. If it was a legal proceeding my lawyeLane3-8/22/2002
19631<font color=red> <b>THREAD:</b> A proposal on the floor. SeLazarus_Long-8/22/2002
19630<b>THREAD HYGIENE</b> I would like to have put to a vote by the thrjlallen-8/22/2002
19629I think I would refuse to answer. If it was a legal proceeding my lawyer wouldTimF-8/22/2002
19628WON-DER-FUL! Keep the cell phone turned off. There's a company called fax.cLazarus_Long-8/22/2002
19627i don't like flying them, but i do frequently enough... i love the effect tMulhollandDrive-8/22/2002
19626I love Southwest Airlines.Original Mad Dog-8/22/2002
19625siliconinvestor.com sw still givin' em hell.MulhollandDrive-8/22/2002
19624Just occurred to me: The Dems have the blacks and Jews. The Reps have the Old Lazarus_Long-8/22/2002
19623Where will it end... FEC Decision Could Jump-Start SMS Political Ads By BrianLane3-8/22/2002
19622<i>Keep it up, Jesse! You divide and we'll conquer! </i> Yeah, Lane3-8/22/2002
19621You Know You're A New Yorker When..... forums.nytimes.com@55.3CW2ahMNRJq^0@.Lazarus_Long-8/22/2002
19620The point of describing my experience was to point out that 1) irrelevant, persoLane3-8/22/2002
19619<i>Also influencing the outcome was a strong white turnout for Majette, &lLazarus_Long-8/22/2002
19618<i> I did not lie under oath. I didn't have any need to lie. I was a gTimF-8/22/2002
19617<i>People are entitled to expect privacy regarding their sex lives. When tLazarus_Long-8/22/2002
19616It is often less then obvious who is lying and in general people are not convictTimF-8/22/2002
19615I bet Bill really wishes he never signed the law that allows for such questions TimF-8/22/2002
19614But the matter was about harassment, not Clinton's sex life. Do you think Bill-8/22/2002
19613I've served on juries. There are two sides and they make different claims. TigerPaw-8/22/2002
19612No with pretty normal prosecutors. Lying under oath is normally taken very seriTimF-8/22/2002
19611Utter baloney. He was caught by a law he signed into existence. He exercised aljlallen-8/22/2002
19610<i>However, his prosecutors showed no more respect for the system and prinjlallen-8/22/2002
19609<i>Just maybe that oath means that he should have had a bit more respect fLane3-8/22/2002
19608I was responding to Steve Rogers....not you... JLAjlallen-8/22/2002
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