So, um, could you apologize to my husband for something from 20 years ago? No reason.

Your position is based on nothing but your own dismal sense of what constitutes morality. As I said, you've more than once shown that my description of it as dismal doesn't really convey how abysmal it actually is.

Part of what constitutes morality would be that one not make unwarranted assumptions about what actually transpired. The day of the wise old gentleman schooling the young lady in manners of sex has long since passed.

The only thing that would make her actions immoral is if she lied about what happened. You don't really know one way or the other.

We can make some assumptions based on the times, how men often acted in such situations but that doesn't mean that Thomas actually did act inappropriately.

I don't even know what the preponderance of evidence showed, but Thomas was elevated to the bench. That doesn't illustrate much in the way of punishment.

Having a wife with little in the way of common sense is a pretty good punishment, if indeed, he deserves any.

I wonder what they've been talking about at the dinner table.

WRONG WRONG WRONG...I know a lot of odd and ends bits of information concerning my friends and family and former co-workers that I could join together that are 100 percent true and also 100 percent misleading being out of content.

It is not moral to used information is such a manner gather under the cover of a friendly relationship as a weapon to harm them for my own benefit.

If that your morals I can only hope that the people around you are aware of that fact and are on constant guard against giving you any information that you in the upcoming years could used as a weapon to harm them.

So, who's your friend, family or former co-worker, Anita Hill or Clarence Thomas?

What is it that possesses you to keep on highlighting your stupidity?

And what does that have to do with the question is it morally correct to used information gather over years under the color of friendly relationships to harm others?

Ms. Hill did not gather information under the guise of a friendly relationship. She was exposed to Mr. Thomas's personality while under his employ and although he may have felt they were the best of buddies, very few people are really friends with their bosses. She did not go out of her way to present her opinion of his conduct, she was specifically asked as part of a background interview. You suggest she should lie (or lie by omission) about her experience under his supervision out because even though he committed what today is clearly sexual harassment, she was able to progress in her career. Assuming her allegations are truthful, I would find lying about them more immoral than keeping silent. You can bet that any woman employed by Justice Thomas today does not have to put up with what Ms. Hill did because someone finally called him out on his behavior. As to the thought that Ms. Hill benefited by her testimony, I would say that overall, her testimony has brought her more grief than benefit. There are many extremists out there who put her up there with Jane Fonda in their Parthenon of liberal evil doers. Justice Thomas receives the daily accolades of his conservative minions and a nice job for his wife. I can't see how she comes out ahead even if she earned some money on a book.

All I'm saying is Ms Hill likes the attention, this was a personal matter and Ms Hill gave it to the media to run with. The past notority and ill fame possibly was one of the factors envolved with her being employed by Brandeis.

Where does she want to work now?

At no time did Ms. Hill give anything to the media. Twenty years ago, her private comments were leaked to the media and she was called for public testimony. This time around, Ms. Thomas sent out a press release saying the FBI had called her after Ms. Hill forwarded the note to campus security.

No, she didn't. "All you're saying" is plainly false.

Ms. Hill DID NOT give it to the media.

Sorry but the fact that she follow him from one job to another limit her standing to complain about his personality in my opinion.

Ridiculous, then why would she give the note to campus security, just an indirect route to the FBI? Mrs. Thomas did not threaten Ms Hill. I think that you are being naive.

Please help me understand your logic here. Anita Hill received a suspicious phone call and forwarded it to her university's campus police. By contrast, Virginia Thomas publicized that she made the phone call, in a press conference she had no reason to give unless she wanted to. Therefore, you're not holding Thomas responsible for the incident being public; you're only holding Hill responsible.

How does that make sense?

My guess is that Ms. Hill routinely gets crank calls. She decided to turn it over to campus police based on her thought that it a hoax and that the prankster might follow up on it. I thought it was a little creepy myself with all that "pray on it" and "think about why you did want you did" stuff. The campus police did not reveal it to the media, but forwarded it to the FBI for investigation. The FBI did not reveal it to the media, but called Ms. Thomas to confirm it. Then she revealed it. That chain of events is not disputed by any party, so why would you believe otherwise?

Interesting turn this discussion is taking.

I'm more interested in why Mrs. Thomas made public statements about her phone call? I suspect it has something to do with her political activity with the Tea Party elections.

BBB

Someone has a hidden agenda?

sorry engineer sometimes i can mangle my rhetoric unbelievably, but i won't take 20 years to apologize. that whole situation is a button pusher for me.

they should have both been shown the door ten minutes in that dog and pony show

next contestant please