What It Is?
UFO_Charlie
Not surprisingly, every media report that I've seen about Clinton asking for
a definition of "is" has failed to include exactly what the context was.
Now, he may not be the most honest guy, but Clinton is pretty swift, and it
seems to me that if he asked for a definition of "is," he probably had a
fair reason to do so, at least legally.
So, what's the straight dope? In what context did Bubba make his now-famous
query?
--
***UFO_Charlie***
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/GG/GJ/GMU/GS d s+:+ a--- C++ W+++ N++
w+ PS+ PE- Y- t@ X+ R tv++ b++ DI+++++ G e- h* r z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
[Discombobulate my email address to reply.]
Alan Hamilton
<dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote:
>Dunno why, but I was thinking about this today:
>
>Not surprisingly, every media report that I've seen about Clinton asking for
>a definition of "is" has failed to include exactly what the context was.
>Now, he may not be the most honest guy, but Clinton is pretty swift, and it
>seems to me that if he asked for a definition of "is," he probably had a
>fair reason to do so, at least legally.
>
>So, what's the straight dope? In what context did Bubba make his now-famous
>query?
You can read the whole thing at
http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm . It's about 1/3 down,
after the return from the 2:38 pm recess. The exact statement was,
A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the –if he –
if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing.
If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
It's tough to parse, but I think he's trying to distinguish between
something that "is" true now, but wasn't in the past, or vice versa.
BTW, it was tough to find. Most search engines throw away "is". I
finally found a site that mentioned that it was in his grand jury
testimony, so I searched on >Clinton grand jury transcript< and found
it.
--
/
/ * / Alan Hamilton
* * al...@primenet.com
The Incredible Dutch Courage
>
>BTW, it was tough to find. Most search engines throw away "is". I
>finally found a site that mentioned that it was in his grand jury
>testimony, so I searched on >Clinton grand jury transcript< and found
>it.
Nice work, Alan. I screwed around with this all afternoon on Google, not
finding much beyond right wing crank sites and newsweek updates because the
"is" kept getting tossed, before deciding to smoke dope and listen to the well
tempered Clavier
""IS HE MAN OR MONSTER OR... IS HE BOTH?"
Mark Brader
> You can read the whole thing at
> http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm . It's about 1/3 down,
>
> BTW, it was tough to find. Most search engines throw away "is".
Words like "is" in this context are called stop words. In google,
you can get stop words to be considered when searching for a phrase
by preceding each one with a + sign. A google search for
"+it depends +on +what +the meaning +of +the word +is +is"
currently finds over 300 hits, of which the 52nd is the above page.
I am rather bemused to find that wording of the quote in the official
transcript, because when I decided to add it to my signature collection,
I made a point of transcribing it carefully from a videotape -- and the
version I have (below) differs in *two* places from the above.
I wonder if he actually said it more than once. Unfortunately, google
won't do a search for pages containing both versions -- too many words
to search on.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
m...@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
My text in this article is in the public domain.
GrapeApe
>something that "is" true now, but wasn't in the past, or vice versa.
The question as asked was leaning fairly strongly towards the "when did you
stop beating your wife? Answer only yes or no", and of course he wanted some
wiggle room.
The thing is in the rural south, if it doesn't make babies, it is often quite
sincerely not considered sex. When there is little cultural entertainment
available, folks have to entertain themselves or each other the best they can
with what is handy.
--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---
Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!
Hank Gillette
grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:
> The thing is in the rural south, if it doesn't make babies, it is often
> quite
> sincerely not considered sex. When there is little cultural entertainment
> available, folks have to entertain themselves or each other the best they
> can
> with what is handy.
There are certainly some adolescent girls who have had oral sex and
still consider themselves virgins.
--
Hank Gillette
GrapeApe
"I asked my wife for a Hummer and all I got was this damn jeep"
JmG
>"is" kept getting tossed, before deciding to smoke dope and listen to the well
>tempered Clavier
I would've done that first.
J
ra...@westnet.poe.com
Definitions of Conveinience.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Randy Poe
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:54:03 -0500, "UFO_Charlie"
><dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote:
>
>>Dunno why, but I was thinking about this today:
>>
>>Not surprisingly, every media report that I've seen about Clinton asking for
>>a definition of "is" has failed to include exactly what the context was.
>>Now, he may not be the most honest guy, but Clinton is pretty swift, and it
>>seems to me that if he asked for a definition of "is," he probably had a
>>fair reason to do so, at least legally.
>>
>>So, what's the straight dope? In what context did Bubba make his now-famous
>>query?
>
>You can read the whole thing at
>http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm . It's about 1/3 down,
>after the return from the 2:38 pm recess. The exact statement was,
>
>A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the –if he –
>if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing.
>If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
>
>It's tough to parse, but I think he's trying to distinguish between
>something that "is" true now, but wasn't in the past, or vice versa.
Thanks for the link. It seemed to me the context was incomplete
without the question, so here's a little more context. I would never
have been able to do this without the fruits of your search:
Q Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area,
briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman.
The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones
deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" -- it's page 54, line 5, "Counsel
is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which
they are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of
any kind in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.."
That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber
Wright, correct?
[So Bennett claimed there is an affidavit filed by Ms. Lewinsky saying
that there is not, at the time of the affidavit, any hanky-panky going
on.]
A That's correct.
Q That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr.
Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement
that there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with
President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
[And here the questioner changes the statement from carefully-worded
true present-tense statement to a past-tense statement that would be
false.]
A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the... if
he... if "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one
thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true
statement.
OK, slippery, but not false. Clinton's answer was just a little too
slippery as well. He could have avoided to weird-sounding "depends on
what 'is' is" by pointing out the distinction between the
present-tense affidavit and the past-tense question.
- Randy
mpl...@my-deja.com
Would the structure of our legal system collapse if judges were
instructed to disallow such verbal shenanigans--questions of the
sort "When did you stop beating your wife?" and dishonesty such as was
practiced by the above attorney?
It would make for less interesting courtroom drama programs, I suppose,
but I think it would actually lead to justice being served more often
than it now is.
(I remember a segment of a Perry Mason program where he was talking
about a couple of Selectric typewriters and deliberately confused the
witness and everyone else. I believe, however, that he was admonished
by the judge, and in any case his purpose was not to lead the witness
into possible perjury, but to allow himself the opportunity to switch
the changeable typing element. Clever. In real life, however, I think
that would be considered tampering with the evidence.)
--
Raymond S. Wise
"The biochemistry of the world is straight out of a Bill Gates
fantasy--there's only one operating system for everything."
Joel Achenbach
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
JmG
>Thanks for the link. It seemed to me the context was incomplete
>without the question, so here's a little more context. I would never
>have been able to do this without the fruits of your search:
<the testimony, snipped>
>OK, slippery, but not false. Clinton's answer was just a little too
>slippery as well. He could have avoided to weird-sounding "depends on
>what 'is' is" by pointing out the distinction between the
>present-tense affidavit and the past-tense question.
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Finally, in one place and in a manner the
common can understand, and without all the political bul, um, rhetoric, an
explanation of the "is" case that makes sense.
Randy, you're a star. Have an extra piece of fruit cake.
J
William C Waterhouse
> ...
> There are certainly some adolescent girls who have had oral sex and
> still consider themselves virgins.
And of course this is implicit in the common old idea of "examining" for
virginity by trying to make deductions from observation of the hymen.
I'm sure there are many accounts of this; here is one from a legal case:
"He compelled this young woman to submit to a physical
examination as to her virginity,..."
---- Commonwealth v. Cauffiel et al., 79 Pa. Super. 596; 1922 Pa.
William C. Waterhouse
Penn State
Robin Colleen Moore
> >It's tough to parse, but I think he's trying to distinguish between
> >something that "is" true now, but wasn't in the past, or vice versa.
>
> The question as asked was leaning fairly strongly towards the "when did you
> stop beating your wife? Answer only yes or no", and of course he wanted some
> wiggle room.
>
> The thing is in the rural south, if it doesn't make babies, it is often quite
> sincerely not considered sex. When there is little cultural entertainment
> available, folks have to entertain themselves or each other the best they can
> with what is handy.
>
Not just in the (rural) South, either--I've known several girls/women
over the years who claimed virgin status irregardless of oral, anal or
digital encounters. (Supposedly anal sex is especially popular among
"good Catholic girls" for exactly this reason.) Apparently the only
thing that counts to a lot of people is actually penile/vaginal
penetration; everything else is "not really sex", and certainly not
something to interfere with virginity. (I spent 8 1/2 years in Georgia,
and got all too familiar w/the Southern version of this attitude; I had
the dubious duty of explaining to my mother that this was how both Bill
Clinton & Newt Gingrich could claim to have not been adulterous--as the
saying goes, "Eatin' ain't cheatin'"...)
Robin the mad photographer (sorry, but it does *too* count!)
Black Sheep Studios, Cambridge, MA -ro...@mindspring.com
Brownie Yenta/Heater Shirt Queen/Minor Net Goddess
"Fortunately, Robin has never asked anyone to kill for her
brownies. She's very sweet that way."--Aimee Lortskell
GrapeApe
lonesome.
JmG
>Robin the mad photographer (sorry, but it does *too* count!)
Does not count.
J
UFO_Charlie
>but it does *too* count
I'm inclined to disagree. Such behavior, at least in my mind, does not
really constitute sex, largely for the simple reason of common usage. Let's
say you've spent the night with a girl and got to second. Next day, a friend
asks, "Did you have sex?" You might very well reply, "Nope, just got to
second."
Of course, despite this, I would consider such behavior to be blatantly
adulterous. One could even stretch and call it a "relationship of a sexual
nature." However, I don't think BJs, etc... really constitute 'sex' as we
commonly know it.
Bob Ward
<dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote:
>Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>but it does *too* count
>
>I'm inclined to disagree. Such behavior, at least in my mind, does not
>really constitute sex, largely for the simple reason of common usage. Let's
>say you've spent the night with a girl and got to second. Next day, a friend
>asks, "Did you have sex?" You might very well reply, "Nope, just got to
>second."
>
>Of course, despite this, I would consider such behavior to be blatantly
>adulterous. One could even stretch and call it a "relationship of a sexual
>nature." However, I don't think BJs, etc... really constitute 'sex' as we
>commonly know it.
Have they moved the bases since I was a teenager? Back then, "Second
Base" was anything under the shirt, with clothes on. Actual oral sex
is a whole nother league.
Opus the Penguin
>Words like "is" in this context are called stop words. In google,
>you can get stop words to be considered when searching for a phrase
>by preceding each one with a + sign. A google search for
>
> "+it depends +on +what +the meaning +of +the word +is +is"
>
>currently finds over 300 hits, of which the 52nd is the above page.
>
>I am rather bemused to find that wording of the quote in the official
>transcript, because when I decided to add it to my signature collection,
>I made a point of transcribing it carefully from a videotape -- and the
>version I have (below) differs in *two* places from the above.
>
> I wonder if he actually said it more than once. Unfortunately, google
> won't do a search for pages containing both versions -- too many words
> to search on.
> --
> Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
> m...@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
Google schmoogle. This is a job for Copernic 2000. A quick search for both
phrases turns up the following site (admittedly among others that *don't*
contain both phrases, but not that many):
http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/clintoncrisis/trial_transcripts/011499_3.html
According to this transcript, you're right that he uttered the statement
more than once (with slight alteration). But that doesn't appear to be the
source of the discrepancy you noticed.
Of the two contenders above, your version of the quote is[1] the only one
uttered by President Clinton. The sentence "It depends on what the meaning
of the word 'is' is" was uttered by James E. Rogan (R-CA) a little later as
a (presumably unintentional) slight mis-quotation of what had been said.
Clinton did, however, repeat his statement later in the trial, this time
adding the definite article: "It depends upon what the meaning of the "is"
is." (He went on to explain: "If the -- if he -- if "is" means is and never
has been, that is not -- that's one thing. If it means there is none, that
was a completely true statement." Hope that clears everything up.)
Now, is everyone convinced about Copernic? Go download it at:
Opus the Penguin
[1] By which, of course, I mean "was."
GrapeApe
I'm convinced if it is an app you have to install in order to perform web
searches, it is probably sending tracking info on your searches to a
repository.
Amy Gleason
UFO_Charlie <dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote in message
news:9780651...@news1.bigplanet.com...
> Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> >but it does *too* count
>
> I'm inclined to disagree. Such behavior, at least in my mind, does not
> really constitute sex, largely for the simple reason of common usage.
Let's
> say you've spent the night with a girl and got to second. Next day, a
friend
> asks, "Did you have sex?" You might very well reply, "Nope, just got to
> second."
>
> Of course, despite this, I would consider such behavior to be blatantly
> adulterous. One could even stretch and call it a "relationship of a sexual
> nature." However, I don't think BJs, etc... really constitute 'sex' as we
> commonly know it.
A couple of weeks ago I took my final exams. One of them was an oral exam.
How was that less of an exam?
L & k,
Amy
Alec Horgan
> A couple of weeks ago I took my final exams. One of them was an oral exam.
> How was that less of an exam?
A couple of days ago I was eating breakfast at
a restaurant, and I asked for some butter for
my toast. The waitress came back with a jar
of Jif. "Wait a minute," I said, "I wanted
butter." "It's peanut butter," she said. "How
is that any less buttery?"
Alec
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> Does not count.
So, Jeff, Homosexuals cannot help but be virgins unless they've tried Het
sex? Uh-uh. Don't buy it. I've know far too many homosexuals who were
*definetly* not virginal.
Ellen Kline
>
>UFO_Charlie <dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote in message
>news:9780651...@news1.bigplanet.com...
>> Of course, despite this, I would consider such behavior to be blatantly
>> adulterous. One could even stretch and call it a "relationship of a sexual
>> nature." However, I don't think BJs, etc... really constitute 'sex' as we
>> commonly know it.
>
>A couple of weeks ago I took my final exams. One of them was an oral exam.
>How was that less of an exam?
>
I think we need to know the details of the vaginal exam before we can comment on
why the oral exam was less of an exam.
JmG
>>>Robin the mad photographer (sorry, but it does *too* count!)
>
>> Does not count.
>
>So, Jeff, Homosexuals cannot help but be virgins unless they've tried Het
>sex? Uh-uh. Don't buy it. I've know far too many homosexuals who were
>*definetly* not virginal.
I never said that. I do believe intercourse (vaginal for women, anal for men) is
the factor that causes an act to be "sex" and a blow job just don't cut it. But
perhaps you'd be surprised at the number of men (and women, in my experience) do
not like anal intercourse.
J
Kevin O'Neill
<glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>UFO_Charlie <dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote in message
>news:9780651...@news1.bigplanet.com...
>> Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> >but it does *too* count
>>
>> I'm inclined to disagree.
Me too.
><snip>
>A couple of weeks ago I took my final exams. One of them was an oral exam.
>How was that less of an exam?
Do you really think oral exams are to exams as oral sex is to sex?
>
>L & k,
>Amy
Hey, are we having cyber sex now? Golly.
smoochies
Kevin
N Jill Marsh
> Not just in the (rural) South, either--I've known several girls/women
> over the years who claimed virgin status irregardless of oral, anal or
> digital encounters.
You forgot mechanical.
Not at all confined geographically. I've met lots of men and women who
use this definition to still say they're virgins, and not a Southerner
among them. I call them mathmatical virgins.
nj"and yeah, technically if I only go half-way each time, I'll never get
to the wall"m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I stepped back, and gave him the floor - noting, as I did so,
that his eye was a-gleam with the light of pure intelligence.
His head, as usual, bulged out the back."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
N Jill Marsh
> I'm inclined to disagree. Such behavior, at least in my mind, does not
> really constitute sex, largely for the simple reason of common usage. Let's
> say you've spent the night with a girl and got to second. Next day, a friend
> asks, "Did you have sex?" You might very well reply, "Nope, just got to
> second."
So, if a guy asked another guy "Did you have sex?", an answer such as
"A blow job," would /definitely/ be a negative answer? No sex of any kind
went on? Anal intercourse would also constitute a strict "No,"?
> Of course, despite this, I would consider such behavior to be blatantly
> adulterous. One could even stretch and call it a "relationship of a sexual
> nature." However, I don't think BJs, etc... really constitute 'sex' as we
> commonly know it.
How about 'sexual activity' or 'sexual behaviour'? While 'sex' may be a
commonly used shorthand for penile-vaginal intercourse, I think we
commonly know that the word also encompasses other behaviours as well.
nj"fooling around"m
GrapeApe
>exam.
>> How was that less of an exam?
Oral exams are often more fair as an assessment of your actual understanding of
a taught concept, and here is one reason why.
An written essay test is often graded by a Teaching Assistant, whose only
critereia for grading seems to be a list of vocabulary words that must be hit.
An essay which uses the concepts to correctly answer the question, yet fails to
label them with the magic words the TA is searching for, gets unfairly graded
for the bad.
The same discussion orally would easily pass
- and the professor giving the exam could probe at weak points in the oratory
to quickly determine that an answer is not merely BS.
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>>So, Jeff, Homosexuals cannot help but be virgins unless they've tried Het
>>sex? Uh-uh. Don't buy it. I've know far too many homosexuals who were
>>*definetly* not virginal.
> I never said that. I do believe intercourse (vaginal for women, anal
> for men) is the factor that causes an act to be "sex" and a blow job
> just don't cut it. But perhaps you'd be surprised at the number of men
> (and women, in my experience) do not like anal intercourse.
Nope, wouldn't be suprised at all. Seems many folk have had the area
de-sexualized in thier minds going back to an early age and there ain't
nothing you can do about it.
But as far as sex goes, achiving orgasm, or working a good way there
counts in my book. If you do it with someone else, that's sex, if you do
it with yourself, that's sex with yourself, aka masturbation. And before
you pounce on it, if one person doesn't come, that doesn't allow them to
maintian virginity. Hell, it's a state of mind more than anything else.
However, penile penetration, while not a bad measure of intercourse, would
seem to leave the lesbians out of the loop. Is a lesbian who fucks
several times a day still virginal simply becuase she hasn't had something
shoved up in her? (yes, I'm quite aware that that likely covers a very
small set of lesbians; shoving things, a whole assortment of things, seems
to be part of the usual act).
The Incredible Dutch Courage
>UFO_Charlie (dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com) wrote:
>
>> I'm inclined to disagree. Such behavior, at least in my mind, does not
>> really constitute sex, largely for the simple reason of common usage. Let's
>> say you've spent the night with a girl and got to second. Next day, a
>friend
>> asks, "Did you have sex?" You might very well reply, "Nope, just got to
>> second."
>
>So, if a guy asked another guy "Did you have sex?", an answer such as
>"A blow job," would /definitely/ be a negative answer?
I would probably preface it with "No, she just gave me head."
> No sex of any kind
>went on?
Well, now you're broadening the word.
> Anal intercourse would also constitute a strict "No,"?
I think that would count, generally.
>
>> Of course, despite this, I would consider such behavior to be blatantly
>> adulterous. One could even stretch and call it a "relationship of a sexual
>> nature." However, I don't think BJs, etc... really constitute 'sex' as we
>> commonly know it.
>
>How about 'sexual activity' or 'sexual behaviour'?
I'd be inclined to read that question substantially more broadly in casual
conversation than during a deposition hearing. Purple wouldn't mean Magenta, or
Mauve, either, and if I'd only taken the bus someplace, I would say "no, I have
never driven there" (if not "I do not recall")
> While 'sex' may be a
>commonly used shorthand for penile-vaginal intercourse, I think we
>commonly know that the word also encompasses other behaviours as well.
I have no recollection of that.
Dutch "everybody's doin' the mess around" Courage
""IS HE MAN OR MONSTER OR... IS HE BOTH?"
N Jill Marsh
> njm...@chat.carleton.ca (N Jill Marsh) writes:
> >How about 'sexual activity' or 'sexual behaviour'?
> I'd be inclined to read that question substantially more broadly in casual
> conversation than during a deposition hearing. Purple wouldn't mean Magenta, or
> Mauve, either, and if I'd only taken the bus someplace, I would say "no, I have
> never driven there" (if not "I do not recall")
As would I, or anyone else with half a brain, regardless of where that
brain was located. And a good lawyer could not answer it even better than
I could not answer it. But outside of a courtroom, a relationship where,
e.g., one's wife is felating the UPS guy, would be considered sexual, even
by good old boys doing the "eatin's not cheatin'" thang.
nj"or would that just be tipping"m
Amy Gleason
Ellen Kline <elk...@interaccess.com> wrote in message
news:ldcp4ts0inpdgjhif...@4ax.com...
Actually, going to the gynecologist and the dentist produce similar kinds of
"invaded, therefore uncomfortable" feelings in me. Plus, I have this
sneaking suspicion that dentists can figure out a lot more about my
lifestyle from the state of my teeth than they let on - so I sort of feel
like he's spying on me.
Oral is an adjective. A blue couch and a brown couch are both couches.
Oral sex and vaginal sex are both sex, as is anal sex. I don't know why
people don't get this...
L & k,
Amy
Amy Gleason
GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20001229130523...@ng-bj1.aol.com...
> >> A couple of weeks ago I took my final exams. One of them was an oral
> >exam.
> >> How was that less of an exam?
>
> Oral exams are often more fair as an assessment of your actual
understanding of
> a taught concept, and here is one reason why.
>
> An written essay test is often graded by a Teaching Assistant, whose only
> critereia for grading seems to be a list of vocabulary words that must be
hit.
> An essay which uses the concepts to correctly answer the question, yet
fails to
> label them with the magic words the TA is searching for, gets unfairly
graded
> for the bad.
>
> The same discussion orally would easily pass
> - and the professor giving the exam could probe at weak points in the
oratory
> to quickly determine that an answer is not merely BS.
Could a similar argument be made for oral sex vs. sex? Is oral sex a better
indicator of sexual knowledge/prowess than "regular" sex?
L & k,
Amy
Bill T
"Amy Gleason" <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:92jaq2$1d9$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
>
> Could a similar argument be made for oral sex vs. sex? Is oral sex a
better
> indicator of sexual knowledge/prowess than "regular" sex?
Absent a literature review, my guess as to the hierarachy of most-to-
least knowledge/prowess required:
1) male-on-female oral
2) female-on-male oral
3) male-to-female regular
4) female-receipient regular
Thus, in some ways "oral" is a more intense form of sex than
"regular".
Bill T
GrapeApe
>of
>"invaded, therefore uncomfortable" feelings in me. Plus, I have this
>sneaking suspicion that dentists can figure out a lot more about my
>lifestyle from the state of my teeth than they let on - so I sort of feel
>like he's spying on me.
Hope your bulemia is better. You really shouldn't open the bottles with your
teeth you know. Still at 3 packs a day? Oreos sure are messy aren't they.
GrapeApe
>Oral is an adjective. A blue couch and a brown couch are both couches.
>Oral sex and vaginal sex are both sex, as is anal sex. I don't know why
>people don't get this...
Usually its because they are only 12 -16 years old, and they think sex is
something that makes babies, and a baby is something they don't want to have.
Everything else is considered necking or making out.
Jake Schmidt
> >Now, is everyone convinced about Copernic? Go download it at:
> >
> > http://www.copernic.com/
>
> I'm convinced if it is an app you have to install in order to perform web
> searches, it is probably sending tracking info on your searches to a
> repository.
Well, all the good words like BOMB, KILL, and PRESIDENT are already filtered
out by the government anyway.
--
Jake Schmidt
Remove nothing to reply--this IS my
correct address...
Hugh Jass
<glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>Could a similar argument be made for oral sex vs. sex? Is oral sex a better
>indicator of sexual knowledge/prowess than "regular" sex?
>
>L & k,
>Amy
Repeated pelvic thrusting is easy...hardwired into the system.
Properly performed fellatio or cunnilingus, on the other hand, is an
art form.
Hugh
Mark Brader
> >
> > I am rather bemused to find that wording of the quote in the official
> > transcript, because when I decided to add it to my signature collection,
> > I made a point of transcribing it carefully from a videotape -- and the
> > version I have (below) differs in *two* places from the above.
> >
> > --
> > Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of "is" is.
> This is a job for Copernic 2000. A quick search for both phrases turns
> up the following site...
>
> http://www.courttv.com/casefiles/clintoncrisis/trial_transcripts/011499_3.html
>
> According to this transcript, you're right that he uttered the statement
> more than once (with slight alteration).
Nope -- you need to look at the context a bit more. The transcript at
<http://www.jurist.law.pitt.edu/transcr.htm>, cited first in this thread,
shows the "Videotaped Testimony of William Jefferson Clinton, President
of the United States, Before the Grand Jury Empaneled for Independent
Counsel Kenneth Starr, August 17, 1998" and was provided by the Office
of the Independent Counsel.
The transcript on the Court TV web site, cited above, shows the "Senate
Impeachment Trial of President Clinton (continued), January 14, 1999" and
was provided by the Federal Document Clearing House. On this occasion
James Rogan had the *same* segment of videotape played twice, and there's
enough context to make it clear that it's the same exchange from August
17. But on the two playings of the tape are rendered with different
wording in this transcript, and both differ from the other transcript.
(Is this "Federal Document Clearing House" a government agency? I've
never heard of it before, which makes it sound like one of those com-
panies that pretend to be government agencies in order to trick you into
reading their junk mail!)
Anyway, it might be instructive to examine the differences, as an
indication of the extent that one can or cannot rely (up)on these
transcripts for accuracy. In the line-by-line comparison below, "0"
indicates words from the transcript cited at pitt.edu, "1" indicates
the first playing of the tape on the second transcript, and "2" indi-
cates the second playing. I have spaced things out so that identical
words will be vertically aligned if you view this in a monospaced font.
Of course, differences in punctuation are to be expected.
SOL WISENBERG:
0 Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area,
1 Mr. President, I want to before I go into a new subject area
2 Mr. President, I want to -- before I go into a new subject area,
0 briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman.
1 briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bennett.
2 briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bennett.
0 The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones
1 The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, in the Paula Jones
2 The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, in the Paula Jones
0 deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" -- it's page 54, line 5
1 deposition. Counsel is fully aware -- page 54, line 5 --
2 deposition. "Counsel is fully aware" -- page 54, line 5 --
0 "Counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an
1 counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an
2 "counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an
0 affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is
1 affidavit, which they were in possession of, saying that there is
2 affidavit, which they are in possession of, saying that there is
0 absolutely no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with
1 absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with
2 absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form with
0 President Clinton.. That statement is made by your attorney in
1 President Clinton. That statement was made by your attorney in
2 President Clinton." That statement is made by your attorney in
0 front of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
1 front of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
2 front of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
PRESIDENT CLINTON:
0 That's correct.
1 That's correct.
2 That's correct.
SOL WISENBERG:
0 That statement is a completely false statement. Whether
1 Your next statement is a completely false statement, whether
2 You're -- that statement is a completely false statement. Whether
0 or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
1 or not, Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky --
2 or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
0 the statement that there was "no sex of any kind in any manner,
1 the statement that, "there is no sex of any kind, in any manner,
2 the statement that there was no sex of any kind, in any manner,
0 shape or form, with President Clinton," was an utterly false
1 shape or form with President Clinton" was an utterly false
2 shape or form with President Clinton, was an utterly false
0 statement. Is that correct?
1 statement. Is that correct?
2 statement, is that correct?
PRESIDENT CLINTON:
0 It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
1 It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
2 It depends upon what the meaning of the "is" is.
0 If the if he if "is" means is and never has been, that is not---
1 If "is" means is and never has been, that is not --
2 If the -- if he -- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not --
0 that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
1 that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
2 that's one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
0 true statement. But, as I have testified, and I'd like to testify
1 true statement. But, as I have testified, and (ph) like to testify
2 true statement. But as I have testified and like to testify
0 again, this is -- it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked
1 again. This is -- it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked
2 again, this is -- it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked
0 about his lawyer's statements, instead of the other way around.
1 about his lawyer's statement instead of the other way around.
2 about his lawyer's statements instead of the other way around.
0 I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was
1 I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was
2 I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was
0 focusing on my own testimony.
1 focusing on my own testimony.
2 focusing on my own testimony.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Truth speak from any chair."
m...@vex.net -- Charlie Chan at the Wax Museum
My text in this article is in the public domain, if you can find it.
Bob Ward
>>Now, is everyone convinced about Copernic? Go download it at:
>>
>> http://www.copernic.com/
>
>I'm convinced if it is an app you have to install in order to perform web
>searches, it is probably sending tracking info on your searches to a
>repository.
>
According to "Opt Out" and "Ad Aware", Copernic 2000 is NOT a piece of
spyware - both of these fine progreams pass it without a hint of
suspicion.
Perhaps you should actually check things out before pronouncing them a
hazard to our privacy.
GrapeApe
>hazard to our privacy.
Gee, whats paranoid about that? You think I'm sensible or something?
Nostradamus
wrote:
Then gorillas are artists:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_198.html
Nostradamus
W ow!
Nostradamus
wrote:
>The Incredible Dutch Courage (mutigho...@aol.comSMASH) wrote:
>
>> njm...@chat.carleton.ca (N Jill Marsh) writes:
>
>> >How about 'sexual activity' or 'sexual behaviour'?
>
>> I'd be inclined to read that question substantially more broadly in casual
>> conversation than during a deposition hearing. Purple wouldn't mean Magenta, or
>> Mauve, either, and if I'd only taken the bus someplace, I would say "no, I have
>> never driven there" (if not "I do not recall")
>
>As would I, or anyone else with half a brain, regardless of where that
>brain was located. And a good lawyer could not answer it even better than
>I could not answer it. But outside of a courtroom, a relationship where,
>e.g., one's wife is felating the UPS guy, would be considered sexual, even
>by good old boys doing the "eatin's not cheatin'" thang.
>
I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter: If the guy does it,
it's not cheating. If his wife does, it is.
Nostradamus
wrote:
>On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:51:53 -0700, Alan Hamilton <al...@primenet.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:54:03 -0500, "UFO_Charlie"
>><dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote:
>>
Nicely put.
Nostradamus
>In article <3a4b9809....@news.newsguy.com>,
> ran...@visionplace.com (Randy Poe) wrote:
>> On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 23:51:53 -0700, Alan Hamilton <al...@primenet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 27 Dec 2000 10:54:03 -0500, "UFO_Charlie"
>> ><dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote:
>> >
[snip]
>
>
>Would the structure of our legal system collapse if judges were
>instructed to disallow such verbal shenanigans--questions of the
>sort "When did you stop beating your wife?" and dishonesty such as was
>practiced by the above attorney?
Doesn't even apply here. This was a grand jury hearing.
Rich Clancey
+ Actually, going to the gynecologist and the dentist produce similar kinds of
+ "invaded, therefore uncomfortable" feelings in me. Plus, I have this
+ sneaking suspicion that dentists can figure out a lot more about my
+ lifestyle from the state of my teeth than they let on - so I sort of feel
+ like he's spying on me.
Try to look at it from the point of view of the dentist or the
gynecologist. Neither of them particularly cares about the stuff
which distresses you most, and they've seen it all so many times it's
probably just boring to them.
--
rich clancey r...@world.std.com rcla...@massart.edu
:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:
It was practically held that the salvation of one's soul must
not be made too depressing, or the young people would have nothing to
do with it.
-- Wm D Howells _A Modern Instance_
*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*
Amy Gleason
Rich Clancey <r...@world.std.com> wrote in message
news:G6Dq0...@world.std.com...
> Amy Gleason (glea...@purdue.edu) wrote:
>
> + Actually, going to the gynecologist and the dentist produce similar
kinds of
> + "invaded, therefore uncomfortable" feelings in me. Plus, I have this
> + sneaking suspicion that dentists can figure out a lot more about my
> + lifestyle from the state of my teeth than they let on - so I sort of
feel
> + like he's spying on me.
>
> Try to look at it from the point of view of the dentist or the
> gynecologist. Neither of them particularly cares about the stuff
> which distresses you most, and they've seen it all so many times it's
> probably just boring to them.
I've tried the "It's Just Like Looking at an Elbow" approach, it doesn't
work for me.
When I'm at the dentist, I don't know what to do with my tongue. I feel
like it is about 6 inches long and 4 inches thick (kind of like when you're
aware of a zit and it just feels HUGE, even though it is just normal sized),
and I feel like it is in the way, and I'm afraid that I'm going to make
some suggestive tongue movement at the dental hygienist, and she'll think
I'm a pervert and will tell the whole office and they'll laugh at me, and
I'm afraid that I'll get in the way of the scrapey thing, and I'll bleed
profusely. I'm afraid that they can tell whether or not I've been orally
sexing someone lately (because some kid in high school told me that they can
tell, and even though I doubt it, I always think about it).
I have similar fears at the gyn office, but I'm still proud of myself for
not giving details about the most recent visit, so I'm not telling!
L & k,
Amy
GrapeApe
>gynecologist. Neither of them particularly cares about the stuff
>which distresses you most, and they've seen it all so many times it's
>probably just boring to them.
Actually, something a bit the opposite also happens as well- with similar
overall results, among medical professionals.
They may be met on the street by a patient who considers them a most intimate
friend, while they just smile and nod until there is enough information to
think "ah, you're the Gall Bladder with the really big stones...."
UFO_Charlie
>I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter: If the guy does it,
>it's not cheating. If his wife does, it is.
Wait...you're not differentiating between sex and cheating. If oral sex is
given to one to whom one is not married, it's not sex, but it's certainly
cheating.
--
***UFO_Charlie***
-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GCS/GG/GJ/GMU/GS d s+:+ a--- C++ W+++ N++
w+ PS+ PE- Y- t@ X+ R tv++ b++ DI+++++ G e- h* r z?
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------
[Discombobulate my email address to reply.]
ctc...@my-deja.com
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> Hank Gillette <hankgi...@bigfoot.com> wrote:
>
> > There are certainly some adolescent girls who have had oral sex and
> > still consider themselves virgins.
>
> Definitions of Conveinience.
When you get right down to it, all definitions are of convenience.
(Except Hebrew, of course, that is the one true language of G-d,
convenient or not.)
Xho
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mark Brader
> > Try to look at it from the point of view of the dentist or the
> > gynecologist. Neither of them particularly cares about the stuff
> > which distresses you most, and they've seen it all so many times
> > it's probably just boring to them.
One has to wonder about the effects of that on *their* sex lives.
(No, this is not an invitation to supply Too Much Information in
response...)
Amy Gleason writes:
> When I'm at the dentist ... I'm afraid that they can tell whether
> or not I've been orally sexing someone lately ...
And what if they could? I mean, if Amy doesn't mind posting that here...
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Sex on trains, of course."
m...@vex.net -- Clive Feather
My text in this article is in the public domain.
Dana Carpender
UFO_Charlie wrote:
>
> Nostradamus <n...@nostradamus.net> wrote:
>
> >I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter: If the guy does it,
> >it's not cheating. If his wife does, it is.
>
> Wait...you're not differentiating between sex and cheating. If oral sex is
> given to one to whom one is not married, it's not sex, but it's certainly
> cheating.
I'd say that if the activity is sexual in nature, and one feels the need
to hide it from one's partner, it's cheating.
--
Dana W. Carpender
Author, How I Gave Up My Low Fat Diet -- And Lost Forty Pounds!
http://www.holdthetoast.com
Check out our FREE Low Carb Ezine!
Big Iron5
>>Could a similar argument be made for oral sex vs. sex? Is oral sex a better
>>indicator of sexual knowledge/prowess than "regular" sex?
>>
>>L & k,
>>Amy
>
>Repeated pelvic thrusting is easy...hardwired into the system.
Well, there are still better ways to do it than others.
>Properly performed fellatio or cunnilingus, on the other hand, is an
>art form.
>
No denying that.
Bob "I don't know much about art, but ... " Moissonnier
Nostradamus
<dj...@bigplanet.combobulate.com> wrote:
>Nostradamus <n...@nostradamus.net> wrote:
>
>>I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter: If the guy does it,
>>it's not cheating. If his wife does, it is.
>
>Wait...you're not differentiating between sex and cheating. If oral sex is
>given to one to whom one is not married, it's not sex, but it's certainly
>cheating.
>
I can NOT have sex and STILL be cheating. Man that su^H^H is
appalling.
Dana Carpender
Husky wrote:
>
> On 28 Dec 2000 23:04:52 GMT, w...@math.psu.edu (William C Waterhouse)
> wrote:
>
> >In article <hankgillette-F5B9...@news.bellatlantic.net>, Hank Gillette <hankgi...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> >> ...
> >> There are certainly some adolescent girls who have had oral sex and
> >> still consider themselves virgins.
>
> Better yet, there was a story in the Midland Reporter several years
> ago that said Junior High and High School girls were engaging in anal
> sex with their boyfriends to preserve their "virginity".
>
> Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? "Aww, honey, you did
> that for ME?"
At least no one ever got knocked up that way.
Joe Shimkus
<dcar...@kiva.net> wrote:
> Husky wrote:
> >
> > On 28 Dec 2000 23:04:52 GMT, w...@math.psu.edu (William C Waterhouse)
> > wrote:
> >
> > >In article <hankgillette-F5B9...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> > >Hank Gillette <hankgi...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > >> ...
> > >> There are certainly some adolescent girls who have had oral sex and
> > >> still consider themselves virgins.
> >
> > Better yet, there was a story in the Midland Reporter several years
> > ago that said Junior High and High School girls were engaging in anal
> > sex with their boyfriends to preserve their "virginity".
> >
> > Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? "Aww, honey, you did
> > that for ME?"
>
> At least no one ever got knocked up that way.
I've read claims that it's not fool proof. That would seem to indicate
that someone somewhere must have gotten knocked up as a result.
- Joe
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Big David
Dana Carpender dcar...@kiva.net> wrote:
> > Husky wrote:
> > > On 28 Dec 2000 23:04:52 GMT, w...@math.psu.edu (William C Waterhouse)
> > > wrote:
> > > >Hank Gillette <hankgi...@bigfoot.com> writes:
> > > >> There are certainly some adolescent girls who have had oral sex and
> > > >> still consider themselves virgins.
> > > Better yet, there was a story in the Midland Reporter several years
> > > ago that said Junior High and High School girls were engaging in anal
> > > sex with their boyfriends to preserve their "virginity".
There was a report last year in a Washington area paper (I can't find it now
in a web search) about dating in the Northern Virginia suburbs among
middle/high school students. Both the girls and the boys considered oral
sex as almost a mandatory thing now, being done even casually among those
not 'dating'.
> > > Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy, don't it? "Aww, honey, you did
> > > that for ME?"
> > At least no one ever got knocked up that way.
> I've read claims that it's not fool proof. That would seem to indicate
> that someone somewhere must have gotten knocked up as a result.
I would be highly interested in reading those account because my knowledge
of human anatomy tells me that unless both parties are mistaken about which
hole the penis is in, it is not likely that anal sex will cause pregnancy.
--
Big David
If you want to send me email, you should be smart enough to figure out how.
Dana Carpender
There have been a few reported cases of sperm leaked outside the
entrance to the vagina swimming their way upstream, with unintended
consequences. My guess is that this is what accounts for the "anal sex
pregnancies" -- just another good reason to use a condom, folks.
Joe Shimkus
<dcar...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
> There have been a few reported cases of sperm leaked outside the
> entrance to the vagina swimming their way upstream, with unintended
> consequences. My guess is that this is what accounts for the "anal sex
> pregnancies" -- just another good reason to use a condom, folks.
Indeed, what Dana posits is the reported cause. And, "Wrap that Rascal"
is always good advice.
Sean Houtman
>UFO_Charlie wrote:
>>
>> Nostradamus <n...@nostradamus.net> wrote:
>>
>> >I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter: If the guy does it,
>> >it's not cheating. If his wife does, it is.
>>
>> Wait...you're not differentiating between sex and cheating. If oral sex is
>> given to one to whom one is not married, it's not sex, but it's certainly
>> cheating.
>
>I'd say that if the activity is sexual in nature, and one feels the need
>to hide it from one's partner, it's cheating.
And it is sex if someone gets an orgasm, or is supposed to.
Sean
--
Visit my photolog page; http://members.aol.com/grommit383/myhomepage
Last updated 10-25-00
N Jill Marsh
Big David (dbo...@etspamhome.com) wrote:
> I would be highly interested in reading those account because my knowledge
> of human anatomy tells me that unless both parties are mistaken about which
> hole the penis is in, it is not likely that anal sex will cause pregnancy.
Your knowledge of human anatomy tells you right, it is unlikely. But
sperm motility is a truly amazing thing, making it not impossible.
nj"former competitive swimmer"m
----------------------------------------------------------------------
"I stepped back, and gave him the floor - noting, as I did so,
that his eye was a-gleam with the light of pure intelligence.
His head, as usual, bulged out the back."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
GrapeApe
>> that someone somewhere must have gotten knocked up as a result.
>
>I would be highly interested in reading those account because my knowledge
>of human anatomy tells me that unless both parties are mistaken about which
>hole the penis is in, it is not likely that anal sex will cause pregnancy.
Devos song "Sloppy", from "Are we Not Men?..."
Greg Goss
>>I could not answer it. But outside of a courtroom, a relationship where,
>>e.g., one's wife is felating the UPS guy, would be considered sexual, even
>>by good old boys doing the "eatin's not cheatin'" thang.
>>
>I think you've gotten to the heart of the matter: If the guy does it,
>it's not cheating. If his wife does, it is.
My hindbrain seems to be wired in a "claiming territory" metaphor. It
only counts if I leave something behind. This is why guys get so
upset when someone doesn't swallow. Or so upset about condoms.
As an intelligent creature, I can rise above the hardwiring. But I
notice it.
Robin Colleen Moore
> In article <3A4F6F2C...@kiva.net>, Dana Carpender
> <dcar...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
> >
> > There have been a few reported cases of sperm leaked outside the
> > entrance to the vagina swimming their way upstream, with unintended
> > consequences. My guess is that this is what accounts for the "anal sex
> > pregnancies" -- just another good reason to use a condom, folks.
>
>
> Indeed, what Dana posits is the reported cause. And, "Wrap that Rascal"
> is always good advice.
>
True. Ejaculate must be kept not only out of the vagina, but away from
the entire genital area, and pregnancies (while rare) have indeed
resulted from sperm dribbling down to the vaginal lips, and then from
there...you get the idea. IIRC, these are known as "splash"
conceptions....
Not to mention that you can indeed get venereal diseases through anal
sex, with the likehood of HIV infection greatly increased by doing it
that way. Oral sex (assuming one swallows) tends to eliminate the
pregnancy worries, but it's still another way to get a social disease,
and it's suggested that the current prevalance of Herpes II (the
"genital" form of the disease, now found in 1 out of 5--or perhaps 1 out
of 4, it's spreading fast--Americans) may be linked to the prevalence of
oral sex and possible...well, "cross-pollination" isn't quite the phrase
I want, but people are turning up w/Herpes I (cold sore) viruses in
their genitals, and Herpes II in their mouths, and the combination of
the two viruses isn't necessarily a good thing. (I think the incidence
of Herpes I in the general population is about 90% or so, FWIW.)
Robin the mad photographer (and if Justin & Britney are indeed still
"virgins", it's probably because they think oral & anal sex don't
count...you can't convince me those two aren't up to *something*...)
Black Sheep Studios, Cambridge, MA -ro...@mindspring.com
Brownie Yenta/Heater Shirt Queen/Minor Net Goddess
"Fortunately, Robin has never asked anyone to kill for her
brownies. She's very sweet that way."--Aimee Lortskell
mpl...@my-deja.com
I have no problem with grand jury hearings being, in general, looser
than actual trials. However, if one possible consequence of testifying
to a grand jury is to face the possibility of perjury--which it is, of
course, as it is any time one testifies under oath--then the attorney
asking the question should be prohibited from such verbal tricks which
have the potential to lead a person into (unintentional) perjury.
Besides, it's immoral, and the ethical rules governing attorneys should
be altered to prevent such things.
Unless, of course (as I asked above), our whole system of justice would
collapse. Better an imperfect system of justice than no system at all.
--
Raymond S. Wise
"The biochemistry of the world is straight out of a Bill Gates
fantasy--there's only one operating system for everything."
Joel Achenbach
Amy Gleason
Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Not to mention that you can indeed get venereal diseases...
Speaking of VD, I have a question about cervical cancer. It has been my
understanding that it is caused by HPV, which is the STD that causes warts.
Yesterday, *another* acquaintance of mine told me she had cervical cancer.
When I asked her how she addressed this issue with her partner (as in, did
your boyfriend get treated?) she told me that not *all* cervical cancer
comes from HPV. Is this bullshit?
What scares me is that she's the 3rd person who I know who has had cancer
and has not told her current partner and former partners because "it might
not have been HPV, so why bother scaring him?" It is easy to see how this
spreads. These are college educated, professional, generally normal and
responsible women. Sheesh.
I'm glad I'm no longer single.
L & k,
Amy
Amy Gleason
Nostradamus <n...@nostradamus.net> wrote in message
news:3a4ef3ae....@news.concentric.net...
If my SO kissed another woman, I would consider it cheating. (Unless it is
his mom or sister or something, and it is clearly chaste).
L & k,
Amy
mike
"Amy Gleason" <glea...@purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:92oklh$fkp$1...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu...
yeah- but unless you two were virgins, its possible that one or the other
might have a dormant case of warts. never know!
>
> L & k,
> Amy
>
>
Amy Gleason
mike <socal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> yeah- but unless you two were virgins, its possible that one or the other
> might have a dormant case of warts. never know!
Well, duh. We could both have HIV, too, but considering that I go to the
doctor every year when I'm supposed to, and I've been tested for everything,
and we've been together for 3 and a half years, I kind of doubt it. Thanks
for the concern.
I never saw this kind of thing in high school. Maybe it just wasn't talked
about, but I only knew one person who had herpes, and she was older than I
was, and she had had over 30 partners at that time. I didn't even see many
STD's in college, the first time. The real explosion in my peer group has
been in the last year or two. I'd say the ages 22 - 24 have been the most
dangerous, so far, in terms of STD's. Maybe people are just talking about
them more.
L & k,
Amy
Lalbert1
>There have been a few reported cases of sperm leaked outside the
>entrance to the vagina swimming their way upstream, with unintended
>consequences. My guess is that this is what accounts for the "anal sex
>pregnancies" -- just another good reason to use a condom, folks.
They don't work!! When we had the partial eclipse on the 25th the science
section of the local newspaper advised those who were going to view the eclipse
to use precautions and follow safe procedures. One of the guys in the
neighborhood put on a condom and watched the eclipse, but he still damaged his
eyes from looking at the sun..
Les
Boron Elgar
<glea...@purdue.edu> wrote:
>
>Robin Colleen Moore <ro...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>> Not to mention that you can indeed get venereal diseases...
>
>Speaking of VD, I have a question about cervical cancer. It has been my
>understanding that it is caused by HPV, which is the STD that causes warts.
>Yesterday, *another* acquaintance of mine told me she had cervical cancer.
>When I asked her how she addressed this issue with her partner (as in, did
>your boyfriend get treated?) she told me that not *all* cervical cancer
>comes from HPV. Is this bullshit?
Not quite...about 93% of cervical cancers are caused by HPV. BUT the
HPV's that causes genital warts do not cause cervical cancer. Lots of
strains, tho.
See below, for a simple overview.
http://womenshealth.about.com/health/womenshealth/library/weekly/aa011599.htm
Boron
Dana Carpender
My husband is allowed to do body shots off of other women at festivals,
which also involves kissing them. I, in turn, get to do body shots off
of other men. But we're together, and we all know that it's going no
further. If he were to go out after work without me and do body shots
off of other women, I'd be, er, annoyed.
Mark Brader
>>> I am rather bemused to find that wording of the quote in the official
>>> transcript, because when I decided to add it to my signature collection,
>>> I made a point of transcribing it carefully from a videotape -- and the
>>> version I have (below) differs in *two* places from the above.
Well, it appears that I misremembered. I now believe that I *intended*
to do that, but had to settle for writing it down after hearing it on
a news broadcast. However, only one of the two errors was mine.
Yesterday I found myself at the Toronto Reference Library with a
bit of time to kill, and it occurred to me to check whether they
had the videotape of Clinton's grand jury testimony. And not only
did they have it, but unlike most of the materials there, it was
a circulating copy. So I checked it out.
As a further convenience, the last person to use the tape had not
rewound it as requested by the library, but had left it positioned
exactly at the passage of interest. (On this tape, published by
PMI and including a bit of their advertising at the front, that's
about 1 hour and 21 minutes from the start of the tape.)
> Anyway, it might be instructive to examine the differences, as an
> indication of the extent that one can or cannot rely (up)on these
> transcripts for accuracy.
The audio quality of the recording is indifferent, and some of the
quietly spoken words are very hard to hear. This alone is enough to
account for several of the discrepancies. But there are also cases
where one or two of the three transcripts I compared in the earlier
posting can be clearly heard to be wrong, and one (unimportant) place
where all three are wrong.
Transcripts 0, 1, and 2 are the same ones cited before, but this time
I have suppressed multiple versions when only the punctuation varies
or where there is no difference. One line is marked 3; that's my own,
in the place where all three of the others are wrong.
"*" at left means "multiple numbered versions", e.g. if 1 and * are
shown, then 0 and 2 were the same. In each case where there is a
discrepancy, I've used block capitals in the line that seems most
correct to me, and in some cases added a note below it.
As before, I have spaced things out so that identical words will be
vertically aligned if you view this in a monospaced font.
SOL WISENBERG:
* Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area,
0 briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. BITTMAN.
* briefly go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bennett.
0 The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, AT the Paula Jones
* The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, in the Paula Jones
[not 100% certain]
0 deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" -- IT'S page 54, line 5
* deposition. "Counsel is fully aware" -- page 54, line 5 --
* "counsel is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed -- has an
* affidavit which they are in possession of saying that there is
1 affidavit, which they WERE in possession of, saying that there is
[but I'm only about 55% sure of this]
* absolutely no sex of any kind, in any manner, shape or form, with
* President Clinton." That statement IS made by your attorney in
1 President Clinton. That statement was made by your attorney in
* front of Judge Susan Webber Wright, correct?
PRESIDENT CLINTON:
* That's correct.
SOL WISENBERG:
0 That statement is a completely false statement. Whether
1 Your next statement is a completely false statement, whether
2 YOU'RE -- THAT statement is a completely false statement. Whether
* or not Mr. Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky,
* the statement that there WAS "no sex of any kind in any manner,
1 the statement that "there is no sex of any kind, in any manner,
* shape or form with President Clinton" was an utterly false
* statement. Is that correct?
PRESIDENT CLINTON:
0 It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.
1 It depends UPON what the meaning of the WORD "is" is.
2 It depends upon what the meaning of the "is" is.
1 If "is" means is and never has been, that is not --
* If the-- if he-- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not --
3 IF THE-- IF HE-- if "is" means is and never has been, that is not AN--
0 that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
* THAT'S one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely
0 true statement. But, as I have testified, and I'd like to testify
1 true statement. But, as I have testified, and (ph) like to testify
2 true statement. But, as I have testified AND LIKE to testify
[presumably meant as "and'd like"]
* again, this is -- it is somewhat unusual for a client to be asked
* about his lawyer's STATEMENTS, instead of the other way around.
1 about his lawyer's statement instead of the other way around.
* I was not paying a great deal of attention to this exchange. I was
* focusing on my own testimony.
Hope this helps.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto | It depends upon what the meaning of the word "is" is.
m...@vex.net | -- Bill Clinton
(Corrected version)
Tank
which also involves kissing them. I, in turn, get to do body shots off
of other men. <
OK, I can't stand the suspense. What's a "body shot"?
--
Tank
"Remember to pillage before you burn"
Dana Carpender
Tank wrote:
>
> >My husband is allowed to do body shots off of other women at festivals,
> which also involves kissing them. I, in turn, get to do body shots off
> of other men. <
>
> OK, I can't stand the suspense. What's a "body shot"?
The art of the body shot may be summarized thusly: Lick, Salt, Lick,
Slam, Suck. One chooses a willing partner of the preferred
gender/persuasion, and chooses a portion of their body to be used --
body shots range from G-rated all the way to X, with PG to hard R
predominating. One then licks that portion of the body, moistening it,
so that one may then apply salt. Then one licks the salt from the
partner's body, slams the shot of tequila, and sucks the lime from their
partner's teeth, kissing him or her in the process.
Competetive artform among some of my friends.
Joe Shimkus
I HAVE GOT TO meet your friends; at least the females.
N Jill Marsh
Dana Carpender (dcar...@kiva.net) wrote:
> The art of the body shot may be summarized thusly: Lick, Salt, Lick,
> Slam, Suck.
Uh, there goes all that concentration on my thesis...
nj"c'mere, lad"m
Tank
...body shots range from G-rated all the way to X,
with PG to hard R predominating. <
Umm, Okay! Glad I asked!
'Scuse me while I go and change my armor.