Angry

"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

What do *you* believe was his lie?


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."



According to the logic espoused by the law professor in this link:
http://lawreview.kentlaw.edu/articles/79-3/Tiersma.pdf it's not
entirely clear that Clinton actually did lie.


But according to sound logic it is entirely clear that Clinton actually did
lie.



At any rate, what a
president does in his private life, as long as it's not criminal,
unconstitutional and has no affect on his sworn duties, is no ones
business but his.


What Clinton did in his private life was never an issue.

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:


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.

Larry Dighera wrote:
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:


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.


You better run for office as you use logic that only politicians can
appreciate. That is almost as good as saying that Vietnam wasn't a war,
but just a "police action."


Matt

"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?



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."

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 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.

"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.