Re: Clinton

[Erikus4@aol.com]

> I think you're missing the point. No one is excusing 
>Clinton's behavior. 

I don't think I missed ANY point, Tim.

> But if you're offended and embarrased by it, what good
> does it do to revisit the details here? It was
> completely unnecessary. 

NOT embarassed by it.  Disturbed that the American public embraced the whole 
thing.  And "revist the details"?  Please.  What the hell list have you been 
reading?  I posted NO details about the scandal, but made a slight reference 
to it.

>You're an articulate writer
>and could have easily made your point just as
>effectively in any number of other ways.  
 
Fortunately, I choose not to play the stupid games that people seem to want 
to play.  The "adoption" thread is a good example.

> Why not just go ahead and admit that using explicit
> language was a mistake? 

Because then I'd have to think like the bunch of you?  Offense is in the mind 
of the offended.  Frankly, I don't care.

> I don't believe the post in question--which many
> understandably found out of place--lends much
> credibility to your other posts. 

Then you'll make the same mistake that many people do.  A statement derives 
no validity from of the status of the person who delivers it.  People on the 
list may discount my posts if they wish.  It isn't my fault if their thinking 
is fouled up.

E. O'Daniel
IDAHO!

Watch it, Tim.  I know where your carrel is...  ; )