> Speaking from personal experience? :)
Nah, the only time I had any sort of extra-relationship indiscretion I
essentially broke down and told my partner about it essentially
immediately. I'm not too good with guilt, and I tend to be too honest.
Sometimes my inner dialog spills over, too. ;-) On e-mail, even. ;-)
;-)
> Note to self: Add "sexist" to list.
I *knew* I should have been more PC with my nouns. <whacks forehead
three times> *Knew* it! Okay, I've been outed twice today... first on
the "L" word, now on the "S" word. I'm a sexist, inasmuch as yes, I
believe that there are certain general *usually cultural* differences
between the sexes, or at least between common perceptions of the sexes,
and thank god! And while men certainly don't have a monopoly on
philandering, aren't we the ones that usually get caught with our pants
down? (Women, of course, have enough sense not to get caught as
often.) Anyway, my point was simply that most *people* who are asked
about illicit dalliances, be they male or female or whatever, are
probably not going to be 100% upfront about it, court or no court, if
they think they're unlikely to be found out.
> Presidential energy expended securing positions for Ms. Lewinsky. JOB
positions, she clarified. Oh,
> nevermind.
Well, I read that whole section pretty closely, and it looked to me like
Ms. Lewinsky went around saying to people other than the president "hey,
the president said help me find a job." To me, it looked like she
threatened, postured, leveraged, manipulated, and outright deceived her
way into any assistance she got, which didn't sound all that substantial
anyway and certainly wasn't out of the scope of the same "Old Boy" stuff
that goes on every day. And it didn't look to me like there was much
Presidential involvement in all that. Of course, that's just my
opinion, I could be wrong.
> wearelost.
Tell me about it. Whew, what a day. Okay, Rohit, have I filled my FoRK
quota for the quarter? ;-)
jb