[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
