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.

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

"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.

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.

Larry,

Don't confuse a "dictionary" definition with a "legal" definition.

By using your logic and definition, rape by anal intercourse would not
be sexual relations since it did not involve PIV.

Clinton HAD sexual relations with "That Woman". To say otherwise is
just plain stupid.

Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.

how many people died as a consequence?

--Sylvain

In article , Sylvain
wrote:

Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.

how many people died as a consequence?

This is relevant how?

--
Bob Noel
New NHL? what a joke

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:
Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.

how many people died as a consequence?

--Sylvain

Not that I agree with such a narrow view of the war and our reasons for
being there but are you saying that it's OK for our president to lie to us
as long as no one dies as a result?

Sylvain wrote:
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

Clinton lied repeatedly under oath.


how many people died as a consequence?

He was impeached, not tried for murder. What is your point?

Matt

"Sylvain" wrote in message
...

how many people died as a consequence?


Were you trying to make a point?