Talk:Monica Lewinsky/Archive 1

message: :He was acquitted by the U.S. Senate, but was later held in contempt of court for perjury by an Arkansas judge. 
As far as I know, what happened in Arkansas was that he agreed to having his law license suspended because of it. An Arkansas judge could never hold him in contempt, because it didn't happen in an Arkansas courtroom. I think he agreed to having his law license suspended because he couldn't afford to fight it (too many legal fees), and he was unlikely to be going back into the practice of law anyway. -- SJK
:My understanding is that he was held in contempt for "abuse of the discovery process" not perjury per se but maybe someone should look this up.  A trial judge in Arkansas does have the power to punish the litigants of an Arkansas case (which the Paula Jones case was) for discovery violations no matter where they happen.  The contempt citation led to more or less automatic disciplinary proceedings to revoke his law license, which he withdrew largely for the reasons you gave.  SCCarlson
----
Critics of the scandals media coverage sometimes note how it displaced news regarding riots, in Cochabamba, Bolivia, over rising water prices - What?  When would riots in Bolivia over water prices ever make it into the American consciousness? -- Zoe
Susan, I  think you may need to cite a reference for this claim, saying who these critics are, so that we can make up our own minds about how seriously to take them. -- Oliver P. 05:11 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
*ok, done Susan Mason
:: Ah, Greg Palast. Okay. -- Oliver P. 05:53 Mar 11, 2003 (UTC)
----
I miss her so much.
Ericd 00:30 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)
Eric, Monica is back!  She will be the host of a new reality television program in which women try to decide which man they want based solely on their personalities, without getting a chance to see what they look like.  Sounds like The Dating Game to me.  -- Zoe
There is few chances to see it here in France... But is there any way to zap from Gulf War II to Monicagate II ?
Ericd 00:57 Mar 23, 2003 (UTC)
Well, BBC America managed to stop their war coverage today long enough to show us Changing Rooms and House Invaders.  -- Zoe
Is the line that says "In a nationally televised statement, Clinton claimed 'I never had sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky.'" meant to refer to his statement, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky."? I'm reluctant to correct it if the first quote is also valid. -- Arteitle 04:09 27 Jun 2003 (UTC)
:I see it's been changed in the article, but I still don't think it's correct. A Google search found 927 hits for "I did not have sex with that woman" and 2050 hits for "I did not have sexual relations with that woman", including the Washington Post and BBC News, so I'm going to change it to the latter. -- Arteitle 23:32, 21 Nov 2003 (UTC)

message: There is a Lewinsky scandal article that has a good writeup on the whole affair.  I think much of what is in this article re: the scandal could be removed. The article should be about the person, not the scandal, since we have an article on the scandal. Gwimpey 00:43, 19 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree, this should be a biographical article. The details about the scandal should mostly be merged into the Lewinsky scandal article. TheCoffee 11:34, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree with the above statements. Much of the information should be merged with the Lewinsky scandal article. We should have more information about her career following this incident and possibly how her infamy spawned it. Does anyone see a parallel between this case and that of Rebecca Loos? --ChrisJMoor 02:08, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do we need this much article? 

message: Apart from being good looking - shouldn't we have a picture of her? Brookie 15:11, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: What - no picture?

message: In my effort to merge the now-deleted list from the article Gay icon to the Gay icons category, I have added this page to the category. I engaged in this effort as a "human script", adding everyone from the list to the category, bypassing the fact-checking stage. That is what I am relying on you to do. Please check the article Gay icon and make a judgment as to whether this person or group fits the category. By distributing this task from the regular editors of one article to the regular editors of several articles, I believe that the task of fact-checking this information can be expedited. Thank you very much. Philwelch 21:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gay Icon Project