|
PureBytes Links
Trading Reference Links
|
<x-html><!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>
<META content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv=Content-Type>
<META content='"MSHTML 4.72.3509.100"' name=GENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><SPAN class=710063800-16091998><FONT color=#0000ff face=Arial size=2>expect
to be ready 11est according to GARY</FONT></SPAN></DIV></BODY></HTML>
</x-html>From ???@??? Tue Sep 15 19:47:21 1998
Received: from 204.246.137.2 (204.246.137.2)
by mail02.rapidsite.net (RS ver 0.3) with SMTP id 21366
for <neal@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 22:06:13 -0400 (EDT)
Received: (from majordom@xxxxxxxxx)
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) id SAA02558
for metastock-outgoing; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:40:55 -0600
X-Authentication-Warning: listserv.equis.com: majordom set sender to owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx using -f
Received: from freeze.metastock.com (freeze.metastock.com [204.246.137.5])
by listserv.equis.com (8.8.7/8.8.7) with ESMTP id SAA02554
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:40:52 -0600
Received: from mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net (mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net [204.127.131.36])
by freeze.metastock.com (8.8.5/8.8.5) with ESMTP id SAA05246
for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>; Tue, 15 Sep 1998 18:52:24 -0600 (MDT)
Received: from none ([12.79.53.244]) by mtiwmhc01.worldnet.att.net
(InterMail v03.02.03 118 118 102) with SMTP
id <19980916004321.GNG27948@xxxx> for <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>;
Wed, 16 Sep 1998 00:43:21 +0000
Message-ID: <006401bde10a$fcbe62a0$f4354f0c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
From: "Richard Siletti" <richieds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1998 20:40:40 -0400
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 4.72.3115.0
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V4.72.3110.3
Sender: owner-metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
X-Loop-Detect: 1
Malcolm,
"I can understand an investigation into alleged illegal activities if
that is what is going on, but someones legal sex life? That could only
be to make mischief, not to serve the cause of justice. Maybe I don't
listen too closely, but the sex stories are the only ones I have heard."
It's not about his legal sex life. It's about a lie told under oath in a
sexual harrassment case. If we want to make perjury under oath legal in such
cases then fine.
"Telling lies, well isn't that part of the definition of politics - I
sure I must have a dictionary here somewhere."
Again, telling lies under oath is another matter. Check your dictionary
under ...PERJURY.
Richie
-----Original Message-----
From: malcolm.scott@xxxxxxxxx <malcolm.scott@xxxxxxxxx>
To: metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <metastock@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tuesday, September 15, 1998 7:32 PM
Subject: Re: "The Seduction of a President" by Kenneth Starr
>Richard Siletti wrote:
>
>> Lionel, read that first part again and then see how ridiculous that
>> last
>> line sounds. Let's blame the investigation, right? Forget the fact
>> that this
>> president lied in front of two juries. Forget that it was the
>> president, not
>> Ken Starr, who chose to have sex with an intern less than half his age
>> in
>> the oval office. Forget that it was the president who chose to take
>> every
>> argument with Starr through the courts at great expense before coming
>> clean
>> only when the semen stain showed up. Right, blame the messenger......
>
>I can understand an investigation into alleged illegal activities if
>that is what is going on, but someones legal sex life? That could only
>be to make mischief, not to serve the cause of justice. Maybe I don't
>listen too closely, but the sex stories are the only ones I have heard.
>Obviously the media think I want to hear it. It only makes me wonder
>why anyone has the authority to ask those kind of questions.
>I can't imagine anyone thinking this American president is anything
>other than a human being with marital problems. I see no reason for
>having to disclose such graphic details, but maybe I am just old
>fashioned. Many seem to be increasingly sexually explicit these days.
>Perhaps he can just ride it out and we can all move on to a higher level
>of sexual openess.
>Telling lies, well isn't that part of the definition of politics - I
>sure I must have a dictionary here somewhere.
>Malcolm Scott
>
>
|