--- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In [email protected], "authfriend" <jstein@> > > > wrote: > > <snip> > > > > "Kinda like Clinton who pushed through the law that required > > > > defendents in civil sexual harrassment suits to answer > questions > > > > about PREVIOUS SEXUAL HARASSMENT CASES...which is the ONLY > reason > > > > he was asked the question about Lewinski in the Paula Jones > > > > deposition (which is what he lied about)." [emphasis added] > > > > > > > > You should have said "previous sexual behavior." That > > > > provision of the law had nothing to do with previous > > > > sexual harassment cases. > > > > > > No, it is YOUR selective definition of the word "cases". I was > > > using it to describe an occurance or instance. > > > > > > The first entry from the dictionary for the word "cases" from > > > http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cases is: > > > > > > "An instance of something; an occurrence; an example: a case of > > > mistaken identity." > > > > > > ...the legal use of "cases" doesn't come in until the 7th > > > definition. > > > > The meanings of words are determined by context, > > Shemp, not by the order of their definitions in the > > dictionary. The context here was, of course, legal > > cases. That may not have been what you meant, but > > it was a perfectly reasonable assumption, not a > > "selective definition." > > > > And in any event, what they get to ask about is > > *sexual history*, not just "sexual harassment." > > So that part was wrong too. Clinton didn't get > > asked about "previous sexual harassment." > > Lewinsky wasn't an instance of sexual harassment, > > obviously. > > > > You're correct when you say they get to ask about previous sexual > history... > > About 10 million feminists will disagree with you when you say that > the Lewinsky affair wasn't an instance of sexual harassment. > > I just had to take a course on a course on sexual harassment in the > workforce (to keep a license current) and I can assure you that a > person in power having on-site sexual relations with an underling -- > consensual or otherwise -- most definitely falls under the > definition of sexual harassment. >
According to CLinton, she chased HIM. Not sure what she's said on that issue. To subscribe, send a message to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Or go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ and click 'Join This Group!' Yahoo! Groups Links <*> To visit your group on the web, go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/ <*> Your email settings: Individual Email | Traditional <*> To change settings online go to: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/join (Yahoo! ID required) <*> To change settings via email: mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to: http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
