William J. Foristal
Thu, 2 Apr 1998 11:22:24 -0500
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (William J. Foristal) writes: Hi Terry, Foolish and biased statements do not constitute any wrong doing on the part of the person making them. Therefore, I agree with you. Bill On Thu, 2 Apr 1998 06:03:55 -0500 (EST) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >[EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > >Hi Jackie, > >There is nothing in our tradition or Constitution that requires that >we not >speak plainly. If I choose to call Al Capone a racketeer, Andrew >Cunanan a >serial murderer, Clarence Thomas a perjurer, Bill Clinton an adulterer >it is >idiocy to claim I am doing something wrong because they were never >tried and >convicted of these things. A perjurer is a felon who lies under oath >about >a material matter. Justice Thomas did that as you acknowledge. Why >should >we not speak plainly? If he feels he is grievously wronged he can >sue. > >How would you know you flunked the test if you did not know the >answers? I >congratulate you on 100%. > >>Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >> >> >>Oh Terry >> >>Then, Thomas really is only a liar in your eyes, because you feel the >"truth" is >>on Anita's side. Therefore, because you believe he is a liar, you >feel free to >>call him a perjuror, despite the fact he has not been charged with it >according >>to what you say. Before you jump up and down, I felt Anita was >telling the >truth >>and believed her, but that still does not give me or anyone the right >to >call him >>a perjuror if he wasn't convicted of perjury in a court of law--liar, >a >>despicable person, yes, but not a perjuror. When you discuss a case, >despite the >>verdict, an unbiased observer (as you put it) must stay objective and >try to >>examine why that verdict was reached. That isn't easy, I admit, for >most >people >>to do and it sure don't make for winning popularity contests : ). So >really in >>the end, what this boils down to is that you believe he is a liar and >that >makes >>it o.k. to state he is a perjuror. >> >>BTW, I flunked your test. The polygraph has less accuracy in >detecting "truth" >>(as you call it) with innocent people. >> >>Cheers >> >>jackief >> >>[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: >> >>> [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: >>> >>> >Jackie Fellows <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: >>> > >>> > >>> >Hi Terry >>> > >>> >Just wondered where you got your information that Thomas was a >>> >perjuror. I am really curious?? >>> > >>> >jackief >>> >>> Really, Jackie? It is obvious to any unbiased observer, which I am >not. I >>> have never had anything but contempt for the toady that was put in >charge of >>> EEO by Reagan essentially to dismantle its operation nor for the >>> intellectual flyweight who was unable to express the slightest >defense of >>> his "natural law" philosophy. >>> But that has nothing whatever to do with his guilt in the matter. >>> >>> When two people tell directly opposing stories, when the normal >human >>> frailties of forgetfulness and imagination are not a factor, one >must choose >>> which to believe if there is to be any judgment of truth at all. >It is >>> rather easy to choose which one is most likely telling the truth >when one is >>> willing to take a polygraph and the other is not even independent >of the >>> results. >>> >>> But that is only a small part of the story. Anita Hill had told >her story >>> to others long before she was called upon to tell her story in >public. She >>> testified unwillingly. Anita Hill had to undergo the withering >attack all >>> women who have suffered from the sexual libido of men who cannot >control >>> their urges. She was called a sexually-repressed man-hungry lesbian >all at >>> once by the mentally-challenged Republicans on the Judiciary >Committee. >>> (No, Jackie, not in those words. There was that stuff coming in >over the >>> transom as the good senator from Wyoming liked to say.) David >Brock, the >>> recently canonized convert from his former rightwing hatchetman >status, says >>> everything is still all true. That even includes the silly story of >the >>> pubic hair on the homework paper of a student, though the student >now says >>> it was a hoax. >>> >>> Justice Thomas let his supporters do their work and remained >silent. He >>> refused to discuss anything, screaming only of another half-vast >conspiracy. >>> His silence speaks volumes just as it does these days in his robes >on his >>> throne in his kingdom. It is an obscenity this caricature sits in >the seat >>> of the magnificent Thurgood Marshall. >>> >>> Let me give you some homework, Jackie. You can do it silently. >The test >>> has only two questions and I will bet you or anyone else can get >the answers. >>> >>> 1. A special prosecutor was appointed to find out which miscreants >leaked >>> the news of Anita Hill that led to the Thomas-Hill hearings. Did >the >>> honorable Democratic senators offer to take a polygraph as proposed >by the >>> special prosecutor so he could complete his investigation? Why or >why not? >>> >>> 2. A coal miner in Virginia (Roger Coleman, I think) was convicted >of the >>> rape and murder of his sister-in-law and condemned to death. He is >often >>> cited as one of those most likely to be innocent. He steadfastly >refused a >>> lie detector test until the eve of his execution. What was the >result of >>> his polygraph? >>> >>> See how easy the test was. Bet you got all the right answers. >>> Best, Terry >>> >>> "Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's >Dictionary >>> >>> Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues >> >> >> >>-- >>In the sociology room the children learn >>that even dreams are colored by your perspective >> >>I toss and turn all night. Theresa Burns, "The Sociology Room" >> >> >> >>Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues >> >> >Best, Terry > >"Lawyer - one trained to circumvent the law" - The Devil's Dictionary > > > > >Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues > _____________________________________________________________________ You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com Or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866] Subscribe/Unsubscribe, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] In the body of the message enter: subscribe/unsubscribe law-issues