I understand that Ray wants respect and so on.

But thi is just plain dumb. The man might not known, but he just did something with this action that is out of his control.

That "Farenheit" is stolen or not (just call it celcius) or that Ray work is respected or not,,, THAT IS NOT THE POINT...

This created a POLITIC intrusion, and republicans will use this thing to try to discredit Moore work... (thx my RAY)...

Exactly like Republicans wanted to discredit Clinton with the Lewinsky case, where all the greatest morons that USA can provide, will spend billions of dollars trying to bring what should be considered as a detail, to the importance of the state security or whatever... gotta love drama Americans,,, gee gee...

Your post was barely coherent. For clarification: what IS your point?

Whatever your politics, Clinton discredited himself with the Lewinsky deal. I suppose sexual harrassment in the workplace applies to republicans only?

Actually, the Lewinsky incident was indirectly responsible for 9/11, in diverting attention from terrorist plots which were then underway.

Where's Michael Moore when you need him?

I applaud Mr Bradbury. He is totally within his right to demand some respect from Michael Moore. Mr Moore is obviously familiar with Mr Bradbury's writings and this futile attempt at worldwide fame at the expense of Mr Bradbury and others is just disgraceful. Michael Moore knew enough about the business that he somehow found a way to steal Bradbury's title and warp the meaning.

I listened a little to Michael Moore on the Charlie Rose program today, and he comes across as a pretty sweet guy. Actually pretty smart, too.

As to my suggestion that Moore be offered the part of the mechanical hound in the upcoming filming of ''Fahrenheit 451'', I may withdraw my nomination at this time...

Oh, dear. He's got Nard.

Nard?

Come in, Nard.

That wasn't sexual harrasment - it was all consensual.

Cheers, Translator

Translator,

True. But the President was being named in a sexual harassment suit. (Whatever the merits of the case, it was a valid proceeding.) He knew, or should have known, that his sexual history can be admitted as evidence in such a proceeding. This, his affair was reckless at best. He should have admitted to the affair, made the point, as you did, that it was consensual, and, er, deflated the issue altogether, freeing him up to pursue Bin Laden, if he so wished. But Clinton didn't admit to anything. He lied under oath. It appears he might have tried to get others to lie as well and, thus, obstruct a legal proceeding, something he can't do, no matter how trivial one may think it is, not only as an officer of the court but as the President of the United States.

Another point: Since he was President, and she was an intern, there might have been coercion not only for the affair but for her testimony to say it was consensual. I, for one, believe the affair was consensual and, thus, not illegal, but still ripe for inquiry in relation to the underlying sexual harassment suit.

("Ripe?" "Underlying?" Man, there's just no getting around the sexual innuendo, is there?)

Once again, it's not the affair that was a problem: it was the cover up of the affair.

Best,

Pete

Hh ... H h E L pp. .. ppfft!! plunk

Nard just reached max gross load, probably from trying to entertain two opposing lines of thought at once without going insane.

Translator. Sexual harrassment in the workplace is not always about consent. It is about a superior taking advantage of a subordinate. He was the president of the US, and she was a 21-year old intern (age approximated).

I disagree. If it is consensual, it is by defintion not sexual harrasment. Which leads me to the defintion (from our trusty common dictionary):

sexual harassment
NOUN: The making of unwanted and offensive sexual advances or of sexually offensive remarks or acts, especially by one in a superior or supervisory position or when acquiescence to such behavior is a condition of continued employment, promotion, or satisfactory evaluation.

-----
As Lewisky was very much into it, and never argued that her job could have gone if she didn't comply, the whole thing was not harrasment.
By the by, whoever keeps their stained dresses for 9 months or so in the closet? Perhaps that idea should be explored as well (ie - that CLinton was set up)?
I agree that he should have agreed - I mean, everybody cheats once in a while - but I guess he was afraid of the scandal that could have happened if he did. I mean - look at Janet Jackson's boobish episode. There was hell in the news for months after. I guess clinton knew that Americans are kinda undersexed, and would simply blow their top (innuendo intended) if he admitted.


Cheers, Translator