Terry Shiavo Poll

[The Duke]

I have repeatedly made it clear that I am under no onus to rpovide evidence that Schaivo wanted to live.  No credible evidence has been produced that she wants to die, and no, the magically appearing hearsay does not qualify.

From Thwe Weekly Standard

Michael's behavior toward Terri has been utterly despicable for the last decade. After she collapsed in 1990, he sued for medical malpractice on her behalf. During the trial, he presented himself to the jury as a dedicated and loving husband--even though he had been romancing other women since shortly after the time of Terri's collapse and brain injury. He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide 
her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.

From National Review[url=http://aolsvc.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20050316235609990012&ncid=NWS00010000000001]Inclsion Daily Express]

Michael filed a medical-malpractice lawsuit, during which he said he would care for her for the rest of her life, which, assuming proper care, would be a normal lifespan. He also presented at trial a medical-rehabilitation expert who had developed a plan to provide support for Terri to maximize her ability to respond to her environment.

From Inclsion Daily Express

In April of 1991, about a year after her collapse, therapists at Bradenton Mediplex Rehabilitation Center determined that Terri's condition was improving and recommended Michael have her transferred to Gainesville Rehabilitation Center to receive advanced therapy so she could continue her recovery.

But by July, Michael had instead moved her to Sable Palms Nursing Home, with no such therapy.

Later, he refused to allow therapies that her parents believed might have allowed her to swallow, so she would not have to rely on a feeding tube.

2. Why did he not mention his wife's wishes during one of two malpractice cases?

In late 1992, one of Terri's doctors settled a malpractice suit out of court for $250,000. The following January, a Pinellas jury awarded about $1.4 to Terri and $600,000 to Michael in a suit filed because her gynecologist failed to ask about her medical history while treating her.

Michael had asked the jury to grant $20 million to pay for Terri's future medical and neurological requirements, based on her life expectancy, which he and his attorneys estimated at 51 years. Michael also told the court he wanted to become a nurse so he could help his wife for as long as she lived.

His attorney told the court about Terri: "She can't respond much but she can respond, and she does respond a little bit, not much. But enough to give him hope."

The following month, February 1993, Terri's parents had a 'falling out' with their son-in-law, because, they claim, he refused the therapies that professionals had recommended.

3. If Michael expected Terri to live to at least age 51, why did he order her caregivers not to treat her for a potentially life-threatening infection in August of 1993, and another in late 1995?

[J. J.]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

I'll ask the questions again, though I doubt that you can answer them factually at this point:


1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

[The Duke]

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably.  The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

[The Duke]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

[J. J.]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

If you don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, you have my condolences.  I will be availible to testify at your compentency hearing.

I'll ask again:

1.  Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2.  Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Why don't you answer them?  Are you afraid you've told some lies and have been caught in it?  Would that be sinful?

[The Duke]

Everything that you've cited, which was written by one author, is a commentary piece, not a news report.

What is the point of me providing evidence to you when any evidence that contradicts what you already believe to be true is dismissed without addressing the merits of thee argument?  This is why I don't want to dig through Lexis Nexis hits on your behalf, its not my fault your ill-informed, and its not my job to fix it.

If you don't understand the difference between evidence and opinion, you have my condolences. I will be availible to testify at your compentency hearing.

I'll ask again:

1. Where is there a credible source than Mr. Shiavo has a life insurance policy worth "a few hundred thousand," "a million," or "$1.2 million," on Mrs. Shiavo?

2. Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

Why don't you answer them? Are you afraid you've told some lies and have been caught in it? Would that be sinful?

I'm going to post this again, and then I'm not going to post it anymore.

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.

[J. J.]

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

Okay, as has been noted, that has been spent, so we can rule out the financial issue.  There have been bloggers who claimed a life insurance policy existed.

You answer to my second question seems to be that there is absolutely no evidence wanted her body to keep functioning in this case.  There is evidence that that she did not wish to be kept alive in this condition.

Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like.  Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

[The Duke]

I have sued the terms insurance settlement and malpractice settlement interchangably. The one is the other.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.

If you're unable to properly read the thread, you have my condolences as well.

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

This is what I'm talking about, YOU'RE 43 YEARS OLD!  You know that was a typo, everyone else knows it was a typo.  Yet you insist on insulting people.

You're 43, its past time to get beyond this nonsense and have a real debate.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.
[/Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like. Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

Just quitting while I'm ahead.

Took a look at your posting history and saw that you started your time here defending James Zogby and AAI.  Typical of the firts Republican to volunteer to be shot by firing squad.

[WMS]

I have repeatedly made it clear that I am under no onus to rpovide evidence that Schaivo wanted to live.  No credible evidence has been produced that she wants to die, and no, the magically appearing hearsay does not qualify.

From Thwe Weekly Standard
[emphasis is mine - WMS]

Michael's behavior toward Terri has been utterly despicable for the last decade. After she collapsed in 1990, he sued for medical malpractice on her behalf. During the trial, he presented himself to the jury as a dedicated and loving husband--even though he had been romancing other women since shortly after the time of Terri's collapse and brain injury. He told the jury he would care for Terri for the rest of her life, which an expert testified would be a normal life span, and that as part of this loving devotion, he would provide 
her with regular medical tests and appropriate rehabilitation with the money the jury awarded.

Terri received about $750,000 in early 1993, and Michael about $300,000 for loss of her companionship. As soon as Terri's money was safely in the bank, Michael put her two cats to sleep. He then melted down her wedding and engagement rings to make a ring for himself. Medical records indicate that Terri went for years without having her teeth cleaned, as an apparent consequence of which, she recently had five teeth extracted.

And, he wanted his wife dead. Within a year of the verdict, he refused to allow doctors to treat her with antibiotics to treat a serious infection, claiming that Terri would not want to live in her disabled condition--a point he somehow forgot to mention to the malpractice jury. Not coincidentally, had she died, he would have inherited her $700,000. Terri's parents sued to mandate care, and their relationship with Michael was forever poisoned.

Thereafter, medical records indicate, Terri had none of the medical testing Michael told the malpractice jury he would provide her, and apparently she received no rehabilitation. Indeed, nurses who cared for her in the mid-1990s filed sworn affidavits claiming that Michael repeatedly refused doctor recommendations that Terri be provided therapy.

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

[True Federalist]

John, considering that the in the older of the two articles by Wesley J. Smith you cited, there is either a factual error or a deliberate stretching of the truth, I’m not inclined to give the author any weight whatsoever in this case.  He states baldly that “Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990” when every other source I’ve seen that coverred the collapse indicated that it had been determined she suffered her brain damage as a result of a heart attack due to a potassium deficiency brought about by an eating disorder.  Granted, what caused the eating disorder is AFAIK unkown, but that’s an awfully long stretch to make, especially without mentioning the other stuff.  In short, I find the author to be clearly biased and not credible.


Under the existing standards for end-of-life legal cases, all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s have been crossed in the case of Terri.  Changing what will happen in her case will require changing those standards, which the Florida Senate has declined to do.

[J. J.]

Commentary or not, those are despicable acts by Michael Shiavo. Although some Reps may be grandstanding on this, do any of you Dems or lefties really want to tie yourselves to supporting this kind of individual?

Also untrue.

Here is the official report on the award, from the Wolfson Report:

Michael Schiavo, on Theresa's and his own behalf, initiated a medical malpractice lawsuit against the obstetrician who had been overseeing Theresa's fertility therapy. In 1993, the malpractice action concluded in Theresa and Michael's favor, resulting in a two element award: More than $750,000 in economic damages for Theresa, and a loss of consortium award (non economic damages) of $300,000 to Michael. The court established a trust fund for Theresa's financial award, with SouthTrust Bank as the Guardian and an independent trustee. This fund was meticulously managed and accounted for and Michael Schiavo had no control over its use. There is no evidence in the record of the trust administration documents of any mismanagement of Theresa's estate, and the records on this matter are excellently maintained.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

Jay Wolfson was the Guardian appointed under "Terri's Law."  According to same report when he filed to remove the tube in 1998, "...Michael Schiavo had earlier, formally offered to divest himself entirely of his financial interest in the guardianship estate."

I've posted a long series of posts on this on the other thead.  Wolfson was appointed by the court and is not employed by Mr. Schiavo.

One of the most disturbing things in the report is this:

It took Michael a long time to consider the prospect of getting on with his life – something he was actively encouraged to do by the Schindlers, long before enmity tore them apart. He was even encouraged by the Schindlers to date, and introduced his in-law family to women he was dating. But this was just prior to the malpractice case ending.

http://jb-williams.com/ts-report-12-03.htm

I have not tried to question anybodies motives, but this is strange.

[The Duke]

John, considering that the in the older of the two articles by Wesley J. Smith you cited, there is either a factual error or a deliberate stretching of the truth, I’m not inclined to give the author any weight whatsoever in this case.  He states baldly that “Terri collapsed from unknown causes in 1990” when every other source I’ve seen that coverred the collapse indicated that it had been determined she suffered her brain damage as a result of a heart attack due to a potassium deficiency brought about by an eating disorder.  Granted, what caused the eating disorder is AFAIK unkown, but that’s an awfully long stretch to make, especially without mentioning the other stuff.  In short, I find the author to be clearly biased and not credible.


Under the existing standards for end-of-life legal cases, all the i’s have been dotted and the t’s have been crossed in the case of Terri.  Changing what will happen in her case will require changing those standards, which the Florida Senate has declined to do.

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself).  Since she never was diagnosed, even after the incident, with serious heart trouble, nor was treated for serious heart trouble, nor has she had a recurrence of this arrythmia that was supposedly severe enough to cut of circulation to the brain, its fair to say that the cause is not really known.

We know she had a heart arrythmia, since the paramedics treated her for it on the scene, but there has been speculation that this was not the root cause of the brain injury, though no counter thesis has been presented.  In any case, it hardly central to the story now, or to the article.

[J. J.]

I'm very sorry, I was unable to understand what you meant by, "I have sued the terms ... ."  (In all seriousness, dyslexia?)

This is what I'm talking about, YOU'RE 43 YEARS OLD!  You know that was a typo, everyone else knows it was a typo.  Yet you insist on insulting people.

You're 43, its past time to get beyond this nonsense and have a real debate.

I have repeatedly addressed your second question, and it borders on psychosis for you to continue to ask it.
[/Ah, you are free to run away and hide if you'd like. Or you can admit the truth, but perhaps that will take admitting it to yourself first.

Just quitting while I'm ahead.

Took a look at your posting history and saw that you started your time here defending James Zogby and AAI.  Typical of the firts Republican to volunteer to be shot by firing squad.

I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.

BTW, this is what I said in my first post:

I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

That was quite prophetic.

You'll also note that I didn't, John D FALSE until you said I was dishostest.  If you are going to complain, be civil. 

I disagree, civilly, with numerous posters, but if you decide to make it personal, or post factually incorrect statements, expect it.

[The Duke]

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

I am typing on a laptop, and the buttons are not very large.  I am also typing faster than should, for whatever reason.  This computer has no word program installed, so the place where I usually type long posts is not here.  If I want to edit a sentence, i find it harder to do so in the post space, but that's what I'm stuck doing.  This is the reason there are so many typos and mixed sentences.  During the week there are no such things, because I'm on my desktop.  "sued" should be "used".

[J. J.]

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself). 

Actually, it's believed to have been related to bulemia.  Dr. Michael Baden raised the issue of cause a few years ago.  Last month he was interviewed by FOX:

BADEN: Greta?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Baden.

BADEN: Yes. No. What's interesting about what Mr. Fox [represented the Schiavos in the malpractice suit] is saying, there were lots of diets, especially many years ago, that had bizarre dietary eating habits and got electrolytes mixed up, as Mr. Fox said, mostly the potassium. If you got too high potassium or too low potassium, then the heart stops...

VAN SUSTEREN: And that's what happened.

BADEN: But it's not from a hardening of the arteries. It stops the heart. If there's not enough blood going to the brain for five minutes because of the heart stoppage, then it causes permanent brain damage.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gary, Dr. Baden, thank you both very much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148756,00.html

She had some damage from her collapse, a spinal fracture, bruised ribs.  

The jury in the malpractice case actually ruled that she was 70% responsible for her condition because she induced vomiting.

[J. J.]

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

Yes, and I do it now; as you indicated, the Secretary of State was meeting with them.  I've also referred to this post at other times.  I don't have a problem with Arabs or any other ethnic or national group.  Do you, or are just trying to hide you the fact that most of what you've posted on this thread is fiction?  That is typical of you you, make false charges and then try to avoid the truth.

[The Duke]

She did not suffer a heart attack.  It is most likely she suffered a heart arrythmia, which was apparently severe enough to stop bloodflow to the brain.  This is somewhat suspicious, since she did not recieve any diagnosis of or treatment for coronary artery disease (The first cause of heart arrythmia severe enough to do this) and she has not recieved a pacemaker, which is the common treatment for the other cause (degradation of the heart itself). 

Actually, it's believed to have been related to bulemia.  Dr. Michael Baden raised the issue of cause a few years ago.  Last month he was interviewed by FOX:

BADEN: Greta?

VAN SUSTEREN: Yes. Go ahead, Dr. Baden.

BADEN: Yes. No. What's interesting about what Mr. Fox [represented the Schiavos in the malpractice suit] is saying, there were lots of diets, especially many years ago, that had bizarre dietary eating habits and got electrolytes mixed up, as Mr. Fox said, mostly the potassium. If you got too high potassium or too low potassium, then the heart stops...

VAN SUSTEREN: And that's what happened.

BADEN: But it's not from a hardening of the arteries. It stops the heart. If there's not enough blood going to the brain for five minutes because of the heart stoppage, then it causes permanent brain damage.

VAN SUSTEREN: All right, Gary, Dr. Baden, thank you both very much.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,148756,00.html

She had some damage from her collapse, a spinal fracture, bruised ribs.  

The jury in the malpractice case actually ruled that she was 70% responsible for her condition because she induced vomiting.

This does not address what I said.

I said the two main causes of heart arrythmia that cna do this to a patient are coronary artery disease and heart damage.  Pottassium deficiency causes heart damage.  To correct this, a pacemaker is typically installed.

However, both the coronary artery disease and the heart damage would require significant medical treatment, but none was recieved.  The condition has never recurred.  This is a bit unusual and suggests that the loss of oxygen to the brain may have been caused by something else, as her arrythmia may not have been serious enough to cause this damage.

This is not to say she did not have a potassium deficiency, or that the deficiency did not cause the arrythmia.  It is not to say that arrythmia did not cause the damage to her brain.  It does however substantiate the idea that the author cans ay that there is dispute about the cause of the brain damage.

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

Hi, this is my first post. 

James Zogby, the President of the Arab American Institute (AAI), is the bother of John Zogby, the pollster.  I have heard about the AAI and I don't believe they could be called "radical."  The site posted below is a State Department release about a meeting with the group and Secretary Powell, who I wouldn't class as "radical" either.

http://usembassymalaysia.org.my/0403pwlaai.htm

That said, I too have noticed a problem with Zogby polls, polls at the same time, in the same state, tend to add more points to Bush.  This is true when compared with other media conducted polls, not candidate polls.  I tend to add 2-3 points to Bush in Zogby's results.

One problem is that they use registered voters and not likely voters; that alone could account for the problem.  I don't think it's bias based Zogby being of Arab extraction.  One recent Gallop Poll showed Bush with 13 point lead, while all others showed a much smaller lead.

You directl defended the AAI, and then your defense is to post a partial transcript of that post!  Did you even think to cover your tracks by deleting the original?  Did you think I couldn't look the thing up?

Yes, and I do it now; as you indicated, the Secretary of State was meeting with them. I've also referred to this post at other times. I don't have a problem with Arabs or any other ethnic or national group. Do you, or are just trying to hide you the fact that most of what you've posted on this thread is fiction? That is typical of you you, make false charges and then try to avoid the truth.

But you didn't admit to this until I psosted it, in fact you intentionally and directly lied about the rest of the content of your post.

[J. J.]

This does not address what I said.

I said the two main causes of heart arrythmia that cna do this to a patient are coronary artery disease and heart damage.  Pottassium deficiency causes heart damage.  To correct this, a pacemaker is typically installed.

However, both the coronary artery disease and the heart damage would require significant medical treatment, but none was recieved.  The condition has never recurred.  This is a bit unusual and suggests that the loss of oxygen to the brain may have been caused by something else, as her arrythmia may not have been serious enough to cause this damage.

Well considering I do of a case, an MI, where there was no additional surgery and medication wasn't prescribed for eight years, it doesn't strike as unusual in the least.  This is especially true in the case of temporarily changed electolyte "mix up."

This is not to say she did not have a potassium deficiency, or that the deficiency did not cause the arrythmia.  It is not to say that arrythmia did not cause the damage to her brain.  It does however substantiate the idea that the author cans ay that there is dispute about the cause of the brain damage.

No, it is to say that this was likely the cause.  There was no evidence of any other cause.

This is so typical of you!  You didn't even post your full post!

But you didn't admit to this until I psosted it, in fact you intentionally and directly lied about the rest of the content of your post.

No, I've said the same thing that I'm saying now.  I would not chharaterize AAI as "radical."  I will say tha Zogby is not a particulary good pollster, but I've that opinion for a long time.  Shira, or perhaps Mypalfish, can attest to that.

It seems irrelevant to the question at hand.  Why don't you answer the question I've asked:

Where is there any credible evidence that Mrs. Shiavo, as an adult, stated that she would want to be alive in this circumstance?

[Jorge Estrada]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

[J. J.]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

Who ever said I was trying to confince him.  Someone who is willing to post deliberately false information on this subject, like John D. FALSE, probably cannot be convinced.

[Snowe08]

I like Charles Krauthammer's suggestion, which won't save Terri, but may prevent having to choose beetween tragedy and legal travesty in the future.

A blogger I frequently read, Little Miss Attila, commented that "Is God testing us? Are we afraid we will have failed that test if this one woman is allowed to die in peace?"

And in seeking a genuinely Christian perspective, that's a very reasonable question to pose. But I also think that a very reasonable corollary to that point is, "maybe the opposite could be true - that we perhaps fail the test when we forget that the body is just a vessel, and focus myopically on our ability to preserve that vessel, even at cost of trapping the soul from returning home to Him".

Throughout this issue, I've mainly focussed on the legal question - can Congress intervene, legally. Because that's an easier question, and the conclusion I drew was, no it can't. In terms of wider policy, yes; in terms of the original House bill, maybe - but not in a specific case, and not in the way that it tried to do so. I don't think that the legal question is irrelevant, I don't even think it's less important. But it is dodging a bullet, because in this case, I think everyone feels a strong imperative tugging at their heart to reach a conclusion on the issue at hand, I just don't know what mine is.

[The Duke]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

I call sword and spear.

[J. J.]

John Ford and JJ, neither of you is going to convince the other one that he is right.  i'd be willing to give you each some gladiator weapons though and watch you fight to the death.  trident and net vs sword and spear.

I call sword and spear.

AK-47, the matchup then would give me the same advantage that I have this debate.

[True Federalist]

I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.

More likely, John is just a bad typist like myself.  For all am I disagreeing with John on the main point, I have to also agree with him that quibbling about spelling typos is childish.

[J. J.]

I'm not attempting to insult you, I could not tell "sued" meant "used."  Just like in this last post, you change letter order in words; you do it very frequently.  I'm very serious in asking if you are dyslexic.  It's not an insult and being dyslexic is nothing to be ashamed of.

More likely, John is just a bad typist like myself.  For all am I disagreeing with John on the main point, I have to also agree with him that quibbling about spelling typos is childish.

I'm not complaining.  I didn't realize that when he typed "sued" he meant "used," expecially when he was referring to a lawsuit settlement

I seroiusly thought this guy was dyslexic, from the inverting of letters. 

There is nothing "wrong" with being dyslexic, and both Nelson Rockefeller and Gen. George S. Patton were.