To: Jim Robinson
LA Times has made no effort to make it easy to see what the allegations are. This is strictly my summary. You have to read each of the articles in detail to get any idea of what happened.
Plus, the press keeps saying that Arnold denies it, then he admits it, then he denies it again. In reality, he admitted to bad behaviour and has made no attempt to specifically answer the allegations from the original story. His spokesman has specifically denied all of the follow-up allegations except the 1-2 that Arnold could not recall.
To: rocklobster11
Did you shower and clean up after having to wade through that cesspool?
15 posted on
10/06/2003 2:12:58 PM PDT by
Registered
(Gray Davis won't be baaaaahhck)
To: rocklobster11
>>This is strictly my summary<<
And what an excellent summary it was, Rocklobster. Many thanks!
22 posted on
10/06/2003 2:17:12 PM PDT by
Humidston
(Do not remove this tag under penalty of law)
To: rocklobster11
Thing that makes it suspicious is, you have nothing stories mixed in with anonymous accusations. A nothing story in my view is being overheard using dirty language in a group.
23 posted on
10/06/2003 2:17:43 PM PDT by
Williams
To: rocklobster11
My thinking is that the follow-up allegations were just "copycat" accusations designed to keep the story on the front page for the entire weekend.
24 posted on
10/06/2003 2:18:24 PM PDT by
ambrose
To: rocklobster11
Very nice job. Thank you!
66 posted on
10/06/2003 5:35:16 PM PDT by
bootless
(Never Forget)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson