"Jay Honeck" wrote:
[In response to Mike...]
Let's see: You
didn't engage in "name calling" when you accused me of "rampant
stupidity" (to quote one of your milder dings)?

I looked up-thread and that insult came only after you wrote "... you are
happy to game the system so that it's perfectly fine for lecherous old
married men to pound on sweet young employees in the Oval Office. The halls
of power have always been filled with such men, enabled by folks like
you...."

I may be arguing with Mike also, but he's made some reasonably sound legal
points (in the opinion of this legal lay person). You appear to have been
the party that fully opened the gates to irrelevant character attacks.

Somehow your
definition of name calling seems to differ from mine -- as if that's a
surprise, coming from someone who can't understand that lying under
oath is wrong.

Your definition of name calling differs from mine too - the "game the
system" quote constituted name calling in my book. Plus, Clinton was not
found guilty of lying under oath. If you want to believe he lied under oath
- fine - your _opinion_ was made clear a while back. But you went beyond
that to impugn the character of someone who doesn't accept your opinion as
established fact.

Have fun flying!