Environmentalists Against the War

[Guest guest]

> Like Robin Cook? Ron Davis? Jack McConnell?

 

I've never heard of Jack McConnell. I concede the point on Robin Cook - but

you have to agree the incident did a considerable amount of damage to the

Labour Party...it just happened to be far enough away from an election for

it to be forgotten before they needed to be elected - and Ron David did

resign.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

Sounds like our Social Security, at least if W. gets his way with it.

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

 

Re: Re: Environmentalists Against the War

Sat, 18 Jan 2003 16:58:06 -0000

 

Hi Nikki

 

> Oh I hope not! I remember the great medical treatment my father got

> when we were in London about 17 years ago. I could have never been

> more impressed.

 

It's gone down hill a lot since then! We pay a form of tax called " National

Insurance " which is supposed to be used for the National Health Service,

Pensions, etc. But it's not! Apparently, when I retire, my National

Insurance payments will mean that I will get a state pension of........

£1.54 (about 2 US Dollars) per week! :-(

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

 

 

 

" Where is the questioning where is the protest song?

Since when is skepticism un-American?

Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same

Those who disagree are afraid to show their face " --Sleater-Kinney

 

_______________

Add photos to your e-mail with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

[Guest guest]

>I've never heard of Jack McConnell.

 

Scottish First Minister. He admitted to his affair in the most recent

Scottish leadership election. And won.

 

After the revelations about Ron Davis he stood down from being a candidate

for leadership of the Welsh Labour party. He was elected member for

Caerphilly in the assembly elections though, and I believe he is still also

a Westminster MP (I could be wrong about that, though if he did resign it

was a long time after his problems became public).

 

The point is that a politician admitting an affair in Britain would not be

forced to resign immediately because people are willing to accept that a

person's private life is just that, and it does not affect their ability to

do their job (though many other factors obviously do, such as donors).

 

This was different under the previous Conservative govenment because of

their " Back of Basics " campaign which promoted virtue and family

life. They were hounded out of office for being hypocrites. That's the

difference.

[Guest guest]

> The point is that a politician admitting an affair in Britain would not be

> forced to resign immediately because people are willing to accept that a

> person's private life is just that, and it does not affect their ability

to

> do their job (though many other factors obviously do, such as donors).

 

Considering that their job is specifically to do what they have promised to

do in their election campaigns, I'd say whether or not they lie to people

they claim to love is very much a statement about their ability to do their

job. If you put yourself in the public eye, then your private life ceases to

be private - that is the decision made by every politician, and when their

private life tells us how they are likely to behave in public office, it is

vital that we have access to that information.

 

I'm surprised that you feel happy to be represented by liars and cheats.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

>If you put yourself in the public eye, then your private life ceases to

>be private

 

Are you saying that when photographers uses telephoto lenses to peer into

bedroom windows of the famous that it is acceptable because they are in the

public eye? To me that is a charter for the gutter press, and one I find

very distasteful.

 

>I'm surprised that you feel happy to be represented by liars and cheats.

 

I'm not, but I never said I was happy with democracy at all! And I sure

don't feel that my views are represented by any of them. Nor do I believe

that it's even possible for any small group of people to ever be anything

but a vast blurring of the beliefs of very different individuals.

 

My problem though is with the 'moral majority' attitude and the pushing of

a culturally accepted norm of monogamy as though any deviation from it is

wrong, when it is just that, a cultural artifact. Which is not to say I

think cheating is okay, lying to someone is wrong, but that such matters

are for those involved. None of the people I listed lied TO ME (unlike the

case of the previous government). If the person, or people, who have been

wronged can forgive I don't see why I should be holding malice on their

behalf. That to me is the difference. It is unusual that I would praise

the British public and media but in the way they have not been as damning

of the current government with Christian values is refreshing. It's almost

enough to make me feel they are more open to individual freedoms. Almost.

 

Back to the original topic though, of course Clinton did lie to the

American people (though that was arguably only because of the fact he was

put in a position where he would have been damned for telling the

truth). That though is also the difference between Clinton and McConnell

et al., and why people are justified in their criticism of him.

[Guest guest]

> Are you saying that when photographers uses telephoto lenses to peer into

> bedroom windows of the famous that it is acceptable because they are in

the

> public eye? To me that is a charter for the gutter press, and one I find

> very distasteful.

 

Not at all - but that's a vastly different scenario to what we're talking

about - and you know it!

 

> My problem though is with the 'moral majority' attitude and the pushing of

> a culturally accepted norm of monogamy as though any deviation from it is

> wrong, when it is just that, a cultural artifact.

 

Maybe for you - but for me, the issue isn't whether or not it is a

" culturally accepted norm " - it is the promise made by one person to someone

they love. If a politician has an " open " relationship, I would have no

objections - it is the fact that they have made a promise to be in a

monogamous relationship with their spouse, and should stick to that promise.

 

> If the person, or people, who have been

> wronged can forgive I don't see why I should be holding malice on their

> behalf.

 

You are completely misunderstanding the point - it is not a matter of

forgiveness - it is a matter of trust. It makes no odds to me what they

did - but it is the fact that they have proven themselves to be

untrustworthy. We aren't talking about a little white lie, or something

which just happens - we are talking about a politician making a promise, and

then acting in a pre-meditated way to break that promise and then cover it

up. That doesn't inspire trust, and I don't trust people who behave in that

way. I'm surprised that you do.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

> I'm not, but I never said I was happy with democracy at all!

 

What would you have in it's place?

 

> My problem though is with the 'moral majority' attitude and the pushing of

> a culturally accepted norm of monogamy as though any deviation from it is

> wrong, when it is just that, a cultural artifact.

 

Maybe monogamy does suit most people. My point is that if you have married

one person (unless you are a Mormon or such) you have promised yourself

solely to them. If you do not wish to be monogamous you should not marry,

and you should not allow a person to believe that you will be monogamous.

In other words, if you are a truly honest person, you will tell the person

you are partly sharing your life with that you will not be monogamous. If

you do not make this point clearly then you are in effect lying to them.

 

Jo

 

> Which is not to say I

> think cheating is okay, lying to someone is wrong, but that such matters

> are for those involved. None of the people I listed lied TO ME (unlike

the

> case of the previous government). If the person, or people, who have been

> wronged can forgive I don't see why I should be holding malice on their

> behalf. That to me is the difference. It is unusual that I would praise

> the British public and media but in the way they have not been as damning

> of the current government with Christian values is refreshing. It's

almost

> enough to make me feel they are more open to individual freedoms. Almost.

>

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

You know, there are guys who are completely faithful to their wives, but

will figuratively screw over as many people as possible. Just because a man

is faithful to his wife doesn't mean he's more trustworthy than a man who

doesn't. If I mention the folks in power here in the States again, I fear

I'll sound like a broken record.

 

So look at JFK--the man would boink anyone who moved, but can you say he was

a bad president?

 

Danielle

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

 

Re: Environmentalists Against the War

Sun, 19 Jan 2003 11:32:29 -0000

 

> The point is that a politician admitting an affair in Britain would not

be

> forced to resign immediately because people are willing to accept that a

> person's private life is just that, and it does not affect their ability

to

> do their job (though many other factors obviously do, such as donors).

 

Considering that their job is specifically to do what they have promised to

do in their election campaigns, I'd say whether or not they lie to people

they claim to love is very much a statement about their ability to do their

job. If you put yourself in the public eye, then your private life ceases to

be private - that is the decision made by every politician, and when their

private life tells us how they are likely to behave in public office, it is

vital that we have access to that information.

 

I'm surprised that you feel happy to be represented by liars and cheats.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

 

 

 

" Where is the questioning where is the protest song?

Since when is skepticism un-American?

Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same

Those who disagree are afraid to show their face " --Sleater-Kinney

 

_______________

Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online

http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Guest guest]

Hi Danielle

 

> You know, there are guys who are completely faithful to their wives, but

> will figuratively screw over as many people as possible. Just because a

man

> is faithful to his wife doesn't mean he's more trustworthy than a man who

> doesn't.

 

All London Buses are red - does that mean that everything red is a London

Bus?

 

My point is not that all those who are faithful to their partner are

trustworthy (which would be a very silly claim) - my point is that all those

who are unfaithful to their partner are clearly not trustowrthy.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

Hi Peter!

 

And just what are you going to do with all that money?

 

Seriously tho, is that service comparable to our social security?

Where they take out so much every paycheck to make sure we as seniors

have money when we retire. It's truly a great system. As long as you

work until you die and never actually need the money.

 

nikki

Everything is easier than one thinks.

Goethe

 

 

, " Peter " <Snowbow@b...> wrote:

> Hi Nikki

>

> > Oh I hope not! I remember the great medical treatment my father

got

> > when we were in London about 17 years ago. I could have never been

> > more impressed.

>

> It's gone down hill a lot since then! We pay a form of tax

called " National

> Insurance " which is supposed to be used for the National Health

Service,

> Pensions, etc. But it's not! Apparently, when I retire, my National

> Insurance payments will mean that I will get a state pension

of........

> £1.54 (about 2 US Dollars) per week! :-(

>

> BB

> Peter

>

>

> ---

> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

> Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

Hi Danielle!

 

Hate to tell you this but our social security is and has been for a

long time down the tubes! Don't see how anyone could screw it up any

worse!

 

Even if they took it away, you could earn more in a savings account

paying $.03 than with the governments " help " .

 

nikki

 

 

, " Danielle Kichler "

<veggietart@h...> wrote:

> Sounds like our Social Security, at least if W. gets his way with

it.

>

>

[Guest guest]

OK, but maybe people should ask themselves: am I better or worse off under

this person's leadership. Most people would say they were better off under

Clinton and far, far worse off under Bush. And we wouldn't have known about

Clinton's affairs if the Repuglycans weren't desperate to bring him down.

 

Danielle

 

 

 

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

" Peter " <Snowbow

 

 

Re: Environmentalists Against the War

Sun, 19 Jan 2003 23:00:38 -0000

 

Hi Danielle

 

> You know, there are guys who are completely faithful to their wives, but

> will figuratively screw over as many people as possible. Just because a

man

> is faithful to his wife doesn't mean he's more trustworthy than a man who

> doesn't.

 

All London Buses are red - does that mean that everything red is a London

Bus?

 

My point is not that all those who are faithful to their partner are

trustworthy (which would be a very silly claim) - my point is that all those

who are unfaithful to their partner are clearly not trustowrthy.

 

BB

Peter

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

 

 

 

" Where is the questioning where is the protest song?

Since when is skepticism un-American?

Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same

Those who disagree are afraid to show their face " --Sleater-Kinney

 

_______________

MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus

[Guest guest]

Believe me, it could be worse. It's supposed to be solvent until around

2038; Dubya's plan could kill it in 2024.

 

You know, of course, that there is a income limit above which one does not

pay Social Security. I think that income should be raised. The idea of

putting SS money in private accounts scares the heck out of me--look at what

happened to the stock market and people's 401(k)'s. Can you imagine what

would happen if people's Social Security money were in that? Well, that's

what the bonehead wants to do!

 

 

----Original Message Follows----

" nikki_mackovitch <nikkimack " <nikkimack

 

 

Re: Environmentalists Against the War

Mon, 20 Jan 2003 11:13:03 -0000

 

Hi Danielle!

 

Hate to tell you this but our social security is and has been for a

long time down the tubes! Don't see how anyone could screw it up any

worse!

 

Even if they took it away, you could earn more in a savings account

paying $.03 than with the governments " help " .

 

nikki

 

 

, " Danielle Kichler "

<veggietart@h...> wrote:

> Sounds like our Social Security, at least if W. gets his way with

it.

>

>

 

 

 

 

" Where is the questioning where is the protest song?

Since when is skepticism un-American?

Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same

Those who disagree are afraid to show their face " --Sleater-Kinney

 

_______________

Protect your PC - get McAfee.com VirusScan Online

http://clinic.mcafee.com/clinic/ibuy/campaign.asp?cid=3963

[Guest guest]

bill and hillary's mess was between, bill and hillary....

he never claimed to honor us with his marriage..if he is having marriage

difficulties, its between him and hillary..had lil bearing on my life..wot did

was his support fer the WTO, NAFTA, and bombing iraq and assorted ditties like

that.,...his sex life has lil bearing on how i feel for him, if he wanted to

have sex with blow up dolls on the white house lawn, wotever, go fer it

dude...yer life....

 

 

 

" Peter " <Snowbow wrote:

 

>Hi Danielle

>

>> Well, in France, I don't think there's a married man who doesn't have a

>> mistress--and many married women have lovers as well--politicians

>included.

>

>Do you have any figures for this, or is it a generalisation based on media

>stereotyping?

>

>> Yes, it was wrong for Clinton to lie about his affairs, but sheesh, it was

>> wrong for these jerks to grill him about his sex life and grill Monica

>> Lewinsky about the details of what she did with the pres.

>

>So, you don't think the electorate have a right to know whether the people

>they are asked to vote for are trustworthy?

>

>> And I have a nice

>> list of guys who attacked Clinton, but couldn't stay true to their

>wives--in

>> fact, left them for the mistresses.

>

>Y'know - in the UK we have a saying.... Two wrongs don't make a right.

>

>BB

>Peter

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

oh, leave poor newty alone..he had to divorce his wife, do you have any idea wot

a drag it is to be married to someone with cancer....

*rolls eyes*

i agree with danille..while clinton wasn't the brightest bulb and he's an ass

fer wot he did to his wife, sh*t, the ones who hopped up and down about

impeachment had a few more skeletons in their closets ....

it was silly...

i don't see any politicians screamin about impeachin the current crop we have in

the administration, yet, imo, wot they are doing is much worse

fraggle

 

" Danielle Kichler " <veggietart wrote:

 

>Well, everything I heard during the flap indicated that the reason we were a

>laughingstock was *because* our politicians made such a big deal over his

>misdeeds.

>

>And I never suggested two wrongs make a right; what I said was that the

>folks who attacked Clinton for his marital infidelity *had no right* to do

>so.  I never said it was OK for Clinton to do what he did; in fact, I think

>he's a jerk for cheating on his wife.

>

>What I said was, it looks really bad to persecute a man for cheating on his

>wife when you've done it yourself.  At least Bill and Hillary Clinton are

>still married, which is more than you can say for Bob Barr (three

>marriages), Newt Gingrich (ditto), Bob Dole, Phil Gramm, Bob Livingston,

>whose House speaker bid was derailed by the fact that he had cheated on his

>wife, and who knows how many others.

>

>And I do think the people should know if their candidates are trustworthy.  

>That includes the guys who play marriage-go-round; the guys who are

>physically faithful, but cozy up to corrupt corporations; the guys who

>support racist organizations (Trent Lott, John Ashcroft, George W. Bush).

>

>Danielle

>

>

>

>

>----Original Message Follows----

> " Peter " <Snowbow

>

>

>Re: Environmentalists Against the War

>Sat, 18 Jan 2003 11:52:52 -0000

>

>Hi Danielle

>

> > Well, in France, I don't think there's a married man who doesn't have a

> > mistress--and many married women have lovers as well--politicians

>included.

>

>Do you have any figures for this, or is it a generalisation based on media

>stereotyping?

>

> > Yes, it was wrong for Clinton to lie about his affairs, but sheesh, it

>was

> > wrong for these jerks to grill him about his sex life and grill Monica

> > Lewinsky about the details of what she did with the pres.

>

>So, you don't think the electorate have a right to know whether the people

>they are asked to vote for are trustworthy?

>

> > And I have a nice

> > list of guys who attacked Clinton, but couldn't stay true to their

>wives--in

> > fact, left them for the mistresses.

>

>Y'know - in the UK we have a saying.... Two wrongs don't make a right.

>

>BB

>Peter

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

>

>

>

> " Where is the questioning where is the protest song?

>Since when is skepticism un-American?

>Dissent's not treason but they talk like it's the same

>Those who disagree are afraid to show their face " --Sleater-Kinney

>

>_______________

>MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*.

>http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

ok, wild thought here

how do you know its a lie..wot if so and so have an understanding? " sure, go

have a toss with that cheerleader, just make sure you wear a condom.. "

 

 

 

 

 

" Peter " <Snowbow wrote:

 

>> The point is that a politician admitting an affair in Britain would not be

>> forced to resign immediately because people are willing to accept that a

>> person's private life is just that, and it does not affect their ability

>to

>> do their job (though many other factors obviously do, such as donors).

>

>Considering that their job is specifically to do what they have promised to

>do in their election campaigns, I'd say whether or not they lie to people

>they claim to love is very much a statement about their ability to do their

>job. If you put yourself in the public eye, then your private life ceases to

>be private - that is the decision made by every politician, and when their

>private life tells us how they are likely to behave in public office, it is

>vital that we have access to that information.

>

>I'm surprised that you feel happy to be represented by liars and cheats.

>

>BB

>Peter

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

heh

how does ya know it wasn't an open relationship?

i doubt they'd come out and say it if they were, political dogsh*t instantly

 

" Peter " <Snowbow wrote:

 

>> Are you saying that when photographers uses telephoto lenses to peer into

>> bedroom windows of the famous that it is acceptable because they are in

>the

>> public eye?  To me that is a charter for the gutter press, and one I find

>> very distasteful.

>

>Not at all - but that's a vastly different scenario to what we're talking

>about - and you know it!

>

>> My problem though is with the 'moral majority' attitude and the pushing of

>> a culturally accepted norm of monogamy as though any deviation from it is

>> wrong, when it is just that, a cultural artifact.

>

>Maybe for you - but for me, the issue isn't whether or not it is a

> " culturally accepted norm " - it is the promise made by one person to someone

>they love. If a politician has an " open " relationship, I would have no

>objections - it is the fact that they have made a promise to be in a

>monogamous relationship with their spouse, and should stick to that promise.

>

>> If the person, or people, who have been

>> wronged can forgive I don't see why I should be holding malice on their

>> behalf.

>

>You are completely misunderstanding the point - it is not a matter of

>forgiveness - it is a matter of trust. It makes no odds to me what they

>did - but it is the fact that they have proven themselves to be

>untrustworthy. We aren't talking about a little white lie, or something

>which just happens - we are talking about a politician making a promise, and

>then acting in a pre-meditated way to break that promise and then cover it

>up. That doesn't inspire trust, and I don't trust people who behave in that

>way. I'm surprised that you do.

>

>BB

>Peter

>

>

>---

>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

>Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

>

>

>To send an email to -

>

>

[Guest guest]

wow, britain has a democracy...??? damn, maybe i should move there, since i

haven't ever really seen one...

so, gotten rid of the house of lords have ya?

*big smile*

 

 

as fer the other discussion..methinks we are hittin some deep personal issues

and may like to back off, as we are gettin into marriage and monogomy and such,

and might start hurting folks feelings....

just a thought

cheers

fraggle

 

 

 

" Heartwork " <Heartwork wrote:

 

>> I'm not, but I never said I was happy with democracy at all!

>

>What would you have in it's place?

>

>>

[Guest guest]

Hi Nikki

 

> And just what are you going to do with all that money?

 

Well - I thought I'd go for a spending spree every month :-)

 

> Seriously tho, is that service comparable to our social security?

> Where they take out so much every paycheck to make sure we as seniors

> have money when we retire. It's truly a great system. As long as you

> work until you die and never actually need the money.

 

Sounds very much like it :-(

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

Hi Fraggle

 

> wow, britain has a democracy...??? damn, maybe i should move there, since

i haven't ever really seen one...

> so, gotten rid of the house of lords have ya?

> *big smile*

 

LOL - no. We don't have anything like a democracy!

 

BB

Peter

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

LOL - same here.

 

Jo

Seriously tho, is that service comparable to our social security?

Where they take out so much every paycheck to make sure we as seniors

have money when we retire. It's truly a great system. As long as you

work until you die and never actually need the money.

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

Danielle

 

You do have to choose the best of what's available - it's just a shame that

the choice isn't better.

 

Jo

 

 

> OK, but maybe people should ask themselves: am I better or worse off

under

> this person's leadership. Most people would say they were better off

under

> Clinton and far, far worse off under Bush. And we wouldn't have known

about

> Clinton's affairs if the Repuglycans weren't desperate to bring him down.

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

If you have an agreement I suppose it is okay, but it didn't seem like there

was an agreement, and it certainly hurt their daughter one hell of a lot -

not the way to behave if you care about your kids! Also doesn't he claim to

be Christian. Christian marriages usually promise to be faithful so he has

broken that promise as well.

 

Jo

 

> ok, wild thought here

> how do you know its a lie..wot if so and so have an understanding? " sure,

go have a toss with that cheerleader, just make sure you wear a condom.. "

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

Of course, he could just have been taking advantage of a young

impressionable girl who came under his charisma - also not very honourable.

Whether the relationship is an agreed open one or not, the fact that he did

what he did caused a lot of trouble for himself, his daughter, Monica and

his country, so I don't think it was a wise action.

 

Jo

 

 

> how does ya know it wasn't an open relationship?

> i doubt they'd come out and say it if they were, political dogsh*t

instantly

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02

[Guest guest]

I have also thought about that, but presume that people think about their

actions before acting, and are prepared to stand by them. I know lots of

people who do not keep their promises to their loved ones, and I count them

as friends. When people put themselves up to represent other people they

should be squeaky clean.

 

Jo

 

 

> as fer the other discussion..methinks we are hittin some deep personal

issues and may like to back off, as we are gettin into marriage and monogomy

and such, and might start hurting folks feelings....

> just a thought

 

 

 

---

Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Version: 6.0.435 / Virus Database: 244 - Release 30/12/02