Nope. "Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." HTH! ;-j

Post #152,567 by Another Scott 4/25/04 6:45:52 PM Reply	Nope. "Depends on what the meaning of 'is' is." HTH! ;-j
Post #152,568 by bepatient 4/25/04 6:51:23 PM Reply	Well that >is< important, >is<n't it? I'm not sure I know what I meant, using >is< twice in a statement so short. If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition} [link\|mailto:bepatient@aol.com\|BePatient]
Post #152,570 by Another Scott 4/25/04 7:28:55 PM Reply	"After all, it isn't only not just the words, isn't it?" - Harry Nilsson. We're coming dangerously close to a stream of boxishness.... :-) Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,576 by boxley 4/25/04 8:48:57 PM Reply	Well making her scream twice isnt sex either fucking her in the ass then wiping your dick on the drapes. thanx, bill attempting to explain profiling doesn't require one to take a position for or against it any more than attempting to explain gravity requires one to be for or against gravity. Walter Williams questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #152,611 by mmoffitt 4/26/04 9:33:44 AM Reply	Nope. Depends on your ability to quote correctly. The statement both box and I were talking about was this: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky." (Washington, D.C., January 26, 1998) [link\|http://www.historychannel.com/speeches/archive/speech_441.html\|http://www.historych...e/speech_441.html] HTH. bcnu, Mikem
Post #152,612 by Another Scott 4/26/04 9:52:55 AM Reply	Yup. Box did get the quote wrong, and you are correct. I was just having some fun. Just to help kill this thread, my final contribution will be [link\|http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/whatclintonsaid.htm\|this]: As you know, in a deposition in January, I was asked questions about my relationship with Monica Lewinsky. While my answers were legally accurate, I did not volunteer information. Indeed, I did have a relationship with Ms. Lewinsky that was not appropriate. In fact, it was wrong. It constituted a critical lapse in judgment and a personal failure on my part for which I am solely and completely responsible. FWIW. Cheers, Scott.
Post #152,614 by mmoffitt 4/26/04 10:53:17 AM Reply	Understood. I was disappointed in him, but more disappointed in my government for pursuing this idiocy. I wish it would die, but it doesn't look like its going to. The Repo Trashers (Coulter, Rush, Liddy, that idiot from Fox - don't remember his name, etc.) still bring it up over and over and over. I guess that keeps their little minds off of the collosal failure their boy has been. :-) bcnu, Mikem
Post #152,618 by boxley 4/26/04 11:15:24 AM Reply	they prefer gravitas not grabbyass shrub's a poorly advized extremely bad decision maker with gravitas bill was a poorly advized halfassed decision maker with grabbyass and grabbyass gets more ratings. thanx, bill attempting to explain profiling doesn't require one to take a position for or against it any more than attempting to explain gravity requires one to be for or against gravity. Walter Williams questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]

Welcome to IWETHEY!