--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "sparaig" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> > > wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "shempmcgurk" <shempmcgurk@> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "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.
"It's vile. It's more sad than anything else, to see someone with such potential throw it all down the drain because of a sexual addiction" - Mark Foley on Bill Clinton in 1998. 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/
