Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

What It Is?

3 views
Skip to first unread message

UFO_Charlie

unread,
Dec 27, 2000, 10:54:03 AM12/27/00
to
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?

--
***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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 1:51:53 AM12/28/00
to
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.

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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 2:52:06 AM12/28/00
to
Alan Hamilton al...@primenet.com writes:

>
>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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 2:55:04 AM12/28/00
to
Alan Hamilton writes:
> 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. ...

>
> 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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 5:02:16 AM12/28/00
to
>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.


--cut and paste to adopt this sig file---

Make Deja a useful Usenet Archive again!

http://www2.PetitionOnline.com/dejanews/petition.html

Hank Gillette

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 11:26:35 AM12/28/00
to
In article <20001228050216...@ng-mg1.aol.com>,
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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 1:21:50 PM12/28/00
to
Do you think the following bumper sticker exists?

"I asked my wife for a Hummer and all I got was this damn jeep"

JmG

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 1:54:28 PM12/28/00
to
mutigho...@aol.comSMASH (The Incredible Dutch Courage) wrote:

>"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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 2:36:01 PM12/28/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 2:50:35 PM12/28/00
to
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:
>
>>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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 4:11:17 PM12/28/00
to
In article <3a4b9809....@news.newsguy.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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 4:53:52 PM12/28/00
to
ran...@visionplace.com (Randy Poe) wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 6:04:52 PM12/28/00
to
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.
>...

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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 6:50:12 PM12/28/00
to
GrapeApe <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote:

> >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

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 6:51:17 PM12/28/00
to
You know, the current thread title could play Subject Line Roulette all by its
lonesome.

JmG

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 9:20:08 PM12/28/00
to
ro...@mindspring.com (Robin Colleen Moore) wrote:

>Robin the mad photographer (sorry, but it does *too* count!)

Does not count.

J

UFO_Charlie

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 9:33:11 PM12/28/00
to
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.

Bob Ward

unread,
Dec 28, 2000, 10:45:44 PM12/28/00
to
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:33:11 -0500, "UFO_Charlie"
<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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 1:51:33 AM12/29/00
to
Mark Brader wrote

>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:

http://www.copernic.com/
--

Opus the Penguin

[1] By which, of course, I mean "was."


GrapeApe

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 2:34:20 AM12/29/00
to
>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.

Amy Gleason

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 8:04:06 AM12/29/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 9:00:24 AM12/29/00
to
"Amy Gleason" <glea...@purdue.edu> writes:

> 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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 10:41:56 AM12/29/00
to

> 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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 10:49:06 AM12/29/00
to
"Amy Gleason" <glea...@purdue.edu>, posted the following:

>
>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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 11:09:24 AM12/29/00
to
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:

>>>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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 11:25:28 AM12/29/00
to
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 08:04:06 -0500, "Amy Gleason"
<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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 11:39:07 AM12/29/00
to
Robin Colleen Moore (ro...@mindspring.com) wrote:

> 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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 11:49:07 AM12/29/00
to
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? 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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 1:05:23 PM12/29/00
to
>> 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.

ra...@westnet.poe.com

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 1:24:04 PM12/29/00
to
JmG <jmg...@bestweb.net> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 2:47:48 PM12/29/00
to
njm...@chat.carleton.ca (N Jill Marsh) writes:

>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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 4:14:30 PM12/29/00
to
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.

nj"or would that just be tipping"m

Amy Gleason

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 7:36:51 PM12/29/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 7:38:26 PM12/29/00
to

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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 7:57:21 PM12/29/00
to

"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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 8:00:43 PM12/29/00
to
>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.

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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 8:02:39 PM12/29/00
to
>
>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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 8:35:31 PM12/29/00
to
"GrapeApe" <grap...@aol.comjunk> wrote in message
news:20001229023420...@ng-fr1.aol.com...

> >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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 9:31:40 PM12/29/00
to
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 19:38:26 -0500, "Amy Gleason"
<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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 9:40:25 PM12/29/00
to
> > [It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is]

> >
> > 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. ...

> > --
> > 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

unread,
Dec 29, 2000, 10:24:40 PM12/29/00
to
On 29 Dec 2000 07:34:20 GMT, grap...@aol.comjunk (GrapeApe) wrote:

>>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

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 4:21:34 AM12/30/00
to
>Perhaps you should actually check things out before pronouncing them a
>hazard to our privacy.

Gee, whats paranoid about that? You think I'm sensible or something?

Nostradamus

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 5:36:10 AM12/30/00
to
On Fri, 29 Dec 2000 21:31:40 -0500, Hugh Jass <hugh_j...@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Then gorillas are artists:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_198.html

Nostradamus

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 6:08:30 AM12/30/00
to

W ow!

Nostradamus

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 6:14:52 AM12/30/00
to
On 29 Dec 2000 21:14:30 GMT, njm...@chat.carleton.ca (N Jill Marsh)
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

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 6:18:25 AM12/30/00
to
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 19:50:35 GMT, 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:
>>
Nicely put.

Nostradamus

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 6:21:26 AM12/30/00
to
On Thu, 28 Dec 2000 21:11:17 GMT, mpl...@my-deja.com wrote:

>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

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 6:45:57 AM12/30/00
to
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.

--
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

unread,
Dec 30, 2000, 7:53:44 AM12/30/00
to

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