If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#171
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
On 30 Dec 2005 12:36:22 -0800, "lynn" wrote
in .com:: You really should use an alias. It took less than 10 seconds to narrow your address down to three possibilites in WI & one in MD. Perhaps John has nothing to hide. |
#172
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Ash Wyllie" wrote in message
... The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes. That's a "big" problem? I would expect anyone involved in a major vote-purchasing scheme would simply take advantage of absentee ballots. You don't buy the behavior of the voter. You just buy their absentee ballot (signed, of course). I don't really think receipts are all that necessary (a single printed ballot should be sufficient), but I don't see that they would present a big problem either. Pete |
#173
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 20:53:27 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in . net:: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message news On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 19:53:19 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in . net:: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." I've had some trouble parsing your sentences above, but here's a fair analysis of the issue: I wrote only one complete sentence above. What part of, "Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.", are you having trouble parsing? It was the sentences following that one. How was I to know that you didn't write the sentences following that one? Were they a quote? http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv...jury092498.htm Clinton asserted his answers were technically accurate. He considered an affair to mean intercourse and interpreted "sexual relations" not to include oral sex performed on him. "Sexual relations" was defined as follows: "A person engages in 'sexual relations' when the person knowingly engages in or causes contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person." However, Marriam-Webster's definition is: Main Entry:sexual relations Function:noun plural Date:1950 : COITUS Main Entry:coitus Pronunciation:*k*-*-t*s, k*-**-, *k*i-t*s Function:noun Etymology:Latin, from coire Date:1855 : physical union of male and female genitalia accompanied by rhythmic movements usually leading to the ejaculation of semen from the penis into the female reproductive tract; also : INTERCOURSE 3 compare ORGASM -coital \-t*l\ adjective -coitally \-t*l-*\ adverb So, while Clinton's statement may not have agreed with the legal definition of 'sexual relations', his statement appears to have been consistent with the accepted meaning of the phrase. The term "sexual relations" was very specifically defined for use in the proceeding. "For the purposes of this deposition, a person engages in sexual relations when the person knowingly engages in or causes . . . contact with the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks of any person with an intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. . . . 'Contact' means intentional touching, either directly or through clothing." So the question of Clinton's alleged guilt hinges on whether or not he was aware of that strict procedural definition at the time he answered the questions. |
#174
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
Larry Dighera wrote:
So the question of Clinton's alleged guilt hinges on whether or not he was aware of that strict procedural definition at the time he answered the questions. No, even the common sense definition would have sufficed. Matt |
#175
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... It was the sentences following that one. How was I to know that you didn't write the sentences following that one? The quotation marks should have tipped you off. Were they a quote? Yes. So the question of Clinton's alleged guilt hinges on whether or not he was aware of that strict procedural definition at the time he answered the questions. Yes, and he was. |
#176
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:14:11 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in et:: The quotation marks should have tipped you off. Here's what you wrote: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote. In the future you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is more apparent that they were not written by you. |
#177
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... Here's what you wrote: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote. Look again. The first sentence is not enclosed in quotation marks. In the future you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is more apparent that they were not written by you. What would be the point of enclosing my own words in quotation marks? In the future you might consider thinking before replying. It should have been obvious that the source was the deposition mentioned in the articles of impeachment. That's what we were discussing. |
#178
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:49:56 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote in :: "Larry Dighera" wrote in message .. . Here's what you wrote: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote. Look again. The first sentence is not enclosed in quotation marks. Right. But there are other portions of what you wrote above that are also not enclosed in quotation marks, however you imply you didn't write them. Who wrote the text that isn't enclosed in quotations marks other than the first sentence? The quotation marks only enclose what Clinton said, apparently. The quotation you cited is not set within quotation marks or otherwise indicated to be other than your words. In the future you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is more apparent that they were not written by you. What would be the point of enclosing my own words in quotation marks? I have not implied that you should do that. How did you manage to infer such an inane notion from what I wrote? In the future you might consider thinking before replying. What makes you think I didn't? It should have been obvious that the source was the deposition mentioned in the articles of impeachment. It wasn't. That's what we were discussing. Please provide the Message-ID of the article in this thread that mentions the "articles of impeachment." I don't recall seeing that phrase in this thread at all. |
#179
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
("Ash Wyllie" wrote)
Receipts can be easily faked also. Even with the bat codes on them, if let's say 6 million were faked, are we going to try to recertify 6 million receipts by hand? The big problem with receipts is that they can be used for selling votes. Thomas Edison 1868: Came up with his first patented invention, an Electrical Vote Recorder. Application for this patent was signed 0n October 11, 1968. Because the invention was way ahead of its time, it was heartily denigrated by politicians... He now becomes much more oriented towards making certain there is a strong public demand and associated market for anything he tries to invent. Tripped over this while surfing. Montblack |
#180
|
|||
|
|||
Angry
"Larry Dighera" wrote in message ... On Fri, 30 Dec 2005 22:14:11 GMT, "Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in et:: The quotation marks should have tipped you off. Here's what you wrote: Clinton lied repeatedly under oath. Among his lies was his response to the question, "I think I used the term 'sexual affair.' And so the record is completely clear, have you ever had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky, as that term is defined in Deposition Exhibit 1, as modified by the Court?" His answer was, "I have never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky. I've never had an affair with her." The quotation marks do not enclose everything other than the first sentence (which you claim was the *only* one you wrote. In the future you might consider citing the source of your quotations, so that it is more apparent that they were not written by you. Isn't Steven the same guy who lifted an entire article from Snopes.com and didn't quote it, thus implying he wrote it? He provided a link at the end but never gave any attribution as to the reason for the link. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Aircraft Spruce: Abused Customers and Fourteen More Angry Comments -- More to Come | jls | Home Built | 2 | February 6th 05 08:32 AM |
If true, this makes me really angry (Buzzing Pilot kills 9 year-old son) | Hilton | Piloting | 2 | November 29th 04 05:02 AM |
millionaire on the Internet... in weeks! | Malcolm Austin | Soaring | 0 | November 5th 04 11:14 PM |
JEWS AND THE WHITE SLAVE TRADE | B2431 | Military Aviation | 16 | March 1st 04 11:04 PM |
Enemies Of Everyone | Grantland | Military Aviation | 5 | September 16th 03 12:55 PM |