Message-ID: <36DBDC1B.3F17@swbell.nat>
From: Ray Burnette <rburnett AT swbell DOT nat>
Organization: Not Organized!
X-Mailer: Mozilla 3.0Gold (Win95; U)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Newsgroups: comp.os.msdos.djgpp,csie.bbs.fj.sci,rec.org.mensa,sci.cognitive
Subject: Re: Why science will be our moral downfall
References: <7b75o7$fp$1 AT nnrp1 DOT dejanews DOT com> <36D71F3F DOT 4A5D92A6 AT jhuapl DOT edu> <7bfbd6$gul$1 AT nnrp1 DOT dejanews DOT com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 16
Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 06:39:55 -0600
NNTP-Posting-Host: 207.193.8.27
X-Complaints-To: abuse AT swbell DOT net
X-Trace: typhoon02.swbell.net 920378252 207.193.8.27 (Tue, 02 Mar 1999 06:37:32 CDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 02 Mar 1999 06:37:32 CDT
To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com
DJ-Gateway: from newsgroup comp.os.msdos.djgpp
Reply-To: djgpp AT delorie DOT com

Jim_Hunter AT postmaster DOT co DOT uk wrote:


> Judge Wright had ruled that any CONSENSUAL sex with Monica was NOT "RELEVANT"
> or "MATERIAL" to any alleged NON-CONSENSUAL sex with Paula. So even assuming
> arguendo that Clinton did  lie at the deposition about Monica and the cigar,
> the lie was NOT at all  "RELEVANT" or "MATERIAL" to Paula's case, and,
> indeed, Judge Wright DISMISSED Paula's case.

  Is this why Judge Wright is seriously considering CONTEMPT charges
  against WJC? That he told the truth? That he did not lie? That it
  was not material or relevant? 

  Ooooookie doakie!
  G'day
  Ray Burnette