Talk:Terri Schiavo case

Archives

1. Archive 1: bit-by-bit changes
2. Archive 2: Michael estranged? Greer's affiliations
3. Archive 3: POV, Michael as cause?, external links
4. Archive 4: Baden's assessment, Euthanasia vs Right-to-die, POV, George Greer, why remove tube, Catholic-influenced decision?, condition wording, open adultery statute, $10M offer, feeling pain, potential abuse, first names, external link quality
5. Archive 5: NCDave conduct, link cleanup, biography request, S686 text, Sun Hudson, Ms./Mrs.
6. Archive 6: court decisions, legal implications, family members' character, wording of condition, pundits, S686 vote, Iraq, Sun Hudson
7. Archive 7: Ms. or Mrs., photo usage, initial collapse, insurance, feeding tube, pronunciation, legal costs
8. Archive 8: cause of collapse, Larry King transcript, Hammesfahr's credentials, Michael's role, nurse's affidavit, the Vatican, page protection
9. Archive 9: photo inclusion, alleged GOP memo, mentioning the money, bulimia as cause, pro-life/anti-abortion, role of the church
10. Archive 10: feeling pain, cleanup of additions, proposed addition of Lieberman analysis and vocalizations
11. Archive 11: poll on terminology ("pro-life" or other), including public opinion, wording on Mr. Schiavo's role, overlinking
12. Archive 12: sources for external links, date correction, "Culture of Life"/"Culture of Death", ABC poll, CAT Scans
13. Archive 13: authority to report condition, NPOV tag, pain speculation in lead?, Catholic category, edit warring, Reuters cite, brain scan, nurse Iyer affidavit
14. Archive 14: disability rights, Ms./Mrs. again, Hammesfahr update, POV issues, Michael an RN, poll on stating pain status
15. Archive 15: summarizing televised statements, LA Times, cremation?, weight, Mr. Schiavo's girlfriend, "life support", Dr. Maxfield, 1994 hospice care, parents sent out before death?, who is "family", relevance of early life, fork article?
16. Archive 16: still "current event"?, family in room, lead section, pronunciation, Last Rites, NYT, list of neurologists, TOC, copyediting, talk archiving and refactoring, "recent developments", affidavits
17. Archive 17: "fact"/"alleged"/"disputed"/"claimed", Martinez talking points memo, HTML entities, Dr. Cranford, Zogby poll
18. Archive 18: Mr. Schiavo living will?, GAL question, NPOV tag, article refactor, medical lodgings, wikithanks, cause of death, other articles
19. Archive 19: short or long intro?, splitting article, relevance test, URL test, Tropix sock puppet?, Perry Fine quote
20. Archive 20: Terri's weight discrepency, unusually stiff neck, length, web accessibility/definition of life-prolonging procedure, paraphrase v. quote, legal grist, re: Patsw rv., uncited statements?
21. Archive 21: Valentine's Day rewritten, splitting article, to Ann Heneghan, the NCDave situation, Natural means
22. Archive 22: NCdave troll?, NCdave vandalism / Prof. Ninja 3RR, Malpractice Suit, Reference links, Pecarek report, To Tropix, Consensus, Abuse, Factual Accuracy v. Neutral Point of View, issues of dispute
23. Archive 23: POV tag, lead section, Bernat Senate Testimony, NCdave editing from IP, "formal vs. journalistic" style, LRod please create an account, Changes by JYolkowski

Please Use This Talk Page Correctly

From Wikipedia:Wikiquette

• Wikipedia articles are supposed to represent all views (more at NPOV). The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis.
• You can always take a discussion to e-mail or to your user page if it's not essential to the article.
• Sign and date your posts to talk pages (not articles!).

Please bear these items in mind when posting to this talk page. This article is controversial and somewhat high traffic. Mis/overuse of the talk page makes it difficult for this page to serve its intended purpose.
Fox1 11:43, 19 Mar 2005 (UTC)

• And remember, when making assertions concerning Mrs. Schiavo herself and her condition. You (almost certainly) do (did) not know her personally, and you (almost certainly) have not examined her in person, and you (very likely -- tell us if it's otherwise :-) are not a physician. So you are working on second-hand, third-hand, or worse reportage. Temper your assertions accordingly.
  

--Baylink 19:23, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

intro

Can we agree on a couple of things for the intro?

First, can we keep it in sequential order? I don't know why people like to mention the last two weeks of her life, but it's stupid to mention that, out of sequence, and then jump back to the previous 14 years leading up to it.

Second, do we HAVE to say "Terri was PVS." ??? I mean, I wrote a version that states the facts of the overwhelming diagnosis in that favor, the court rulings that affirm it, and the two doctors who said she was MCS. That is all factual, isn't it? It represents the truth, doesn't it?

Basically, I'm sick of fighting off the vandals and morons like NCdave who take out "Terri was PVS" and replace it with utter nonsense about how a conspiracy of doctors, the courts, the police, and her husband all conspired to get her diagnosed as PVS when she was really MCS. And I was hoping by avoiding saying the sentence "Terri was PVS" it would keep the flat-earthers away from the page.

If folks can't agree on this and insist on saying "Terri was PVS" then you might as well revert the intro to what it was before I did a complete re-edit of it yesterday. My version is bulkier and there is no sense in taking on all that extra weight dancing around not saying "Terri was PVS" but listing the overwhelming evidence, if you're just going to friggen modify it to say "Terri was PVS" anyway.

Do people get my drift here? If you're going to say the three words "Terri was PVS" then the list of overwhelming evidence in the intro is pointless when people can read it later. The idea was instead to list the overwhelming evidence, including the minority of evidence that disputes it, and let the reader decide. If you can't handle this and insist on the three words "terri was PVS" being in the intro, then revert the whole intro to the way it was before I touched it yesterday.

FuelWagon 21:47, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

The only thing is, the statement "In every case and in every appeal, the courts ruled that Terri was in a PVS" isn't quite accurate. As I understand it, one court ruled at trial that she was in a PVS and that judgement was upheld by all of the other courts. That's a subtle but important legal distinction. If you could clarify that it would help.

That the ruling was made and affirmed makes the diagnosis a matter of judicial fact and is not only ipso facto NPOV but refutes a priori all challenges by others that she was MCS or whatever else someone wants to think. If NCdave could get his arms around that irrefutable legal fact (despite that he disagrees with it) a lot of his rewriting would be unnecessary. No one can legitimately claim, as a matter of fact, that she wasn't in a PVS. The courts have ruled that she was--period.

"Schiavo" vs. "Terri"

Why were all the references to Terri Schiavo in this article changed from "Schiavo" to "Terri"? Why is Terri Schiavo different from every other human being with an article in Wikipedia? Wikipedia style is to use the subject's last name on second and later references. In the case of any ambiguity, a title can be used and, in those cases (in sentences in which both Michael and Terri Schiavo are both mentioned, for example), I also wouldn't have an objection to using "Terri" for clarity's sake. But in parts of the article where it's absolutely clear which Schiavo is being referred to: why are we now using "Terri"? That goes utterly against Wikipedia style, and is arguably a political and POV statement - as hardcore fundementalists evidently don't like seeing her husband's name (inventing "Schindler-Schiavo" in some cases, which she evidently never used. I can find sources for this usage on the web, if people haven't already seen it) and in fact they generally always referred to her just as "Terri" in any media discussions of the case.

Terri Schiavo is not a unique human being in terms of Wikipedia policy. There is no possible justification for deciding that she should be called by her first name in unambigious references, while every other person about whom there is a Wikipedia article is called by their last name. If someone thinks they have a justification, please let us in on the secret. Moncrief 01:02, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

This was discussed extensively in Archive 14 & Archive 23. The MoS states it's position as a suggestion. Mrs. Schiavo's case is certainly (& unfourtunately) not unique. However, with the numerous references to various Schiavos, the decision was made to use Informal Style to make the article easier to read, and to offend as few people as possible. Other alternatives may include Journalistic Style (the Wikipedia default) or Formal. If you are dissatisfied with Informal Sytle you may wish to change the references to Formal Style, although this will require reworking a number of sentences and references. Since Mrs. Schiavo is recently deceased, I have argued that Journalistic Style ("Schiavo") is inappropriate. It also makes the article much more difficult to follow. With the passage of time, a switch to Formal, or even Journalistic, Style may be appropriate. For now, the issue(s) is raw enough to warrant compassionate handling.--ghost 16:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Since Mrs. Schiavo is recently deceased, I have argued that Journalistic Style ("Schiavo") is inappropriate.

In other words, you're saying that you believe that journalists don't use "journalistic style" when writing about dead people? That all Wikipedia articles about dead people shouldn't use "journalistic style" (i.e., Wikipedia policy)? I mean, if your invented "informal style" is to apply to one person who is dead, why doesn't it apply to all people who are dead? You're making up rules to fit this one article. Why? Moncrief 18:39, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I'm saying nothing of the sort. I am saying it's up to us. And that myself and others have indicated a preference to something other than Journalistic Style. Outside the U.S., journalists typically use Formal Style to refer to the recently deceased. Informal Style is a recognized style that uses someone's first name in preference to their surname. I would recommend the links onArchive 23or try the Wikipedia:Manual of Style. Rather than take offense, rewrite the article in Formal Style. BTW, in Archive 14 the majority vote was for Mrs. over Ms. Something I continue to disagree with, but it's a community project after all.--ghost 19:43, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

I have read the archive and you don't seem to understand something that others tried to explain to you a number of times: the Ms. vs. Mrs. vote was only for ambigious references to Terri Schiavo, where it wasn't already clear which Schiavo was being referred to. At the time of that vote, there was no consensus either to change every reference from "Schiavo" to "Terri" nor to change every reference from "Schiavo" to either "Ms. Schiavo" or "Mrs. Schiavo" - ONLY the ambigious ones. Why is it so important to you that she be called "Terri" in all the unambigious references? What is about her that necessitates such an "informal style" and not for other articles about recently-dead people on Wikipedia? Why don't you want to call Saul Bellow "Saul" throughout his article or Susan Sontag "Susan" througout hers? (Do you? If so, why aren't you over there arguing this point). I suspect the answer has something to do with the POV you've brought to this article and don't seem to be able to check at the door. Moncrief 20:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I will freely admit to having a POV. As do you, and everyone else. Wikipedia welcomes that. Let me state, for the record, that I was not advocating use of Informal Style. I was advocating that we switch to Formal. Informal was chosen to seek a middle ground. I didn't make those changes to this page.

As to your examples, they were both entertainers and/or celebrities for which the Journalistic "Sontag" is entirely appropriate, since they chose their notoriety. They were also not (to my knowledge) wrapped up in messy familial legal proceedings that were referenced repeatedly in their articles. As to the ambiguous references, look back a few weeks to the time before the style was changed. The article was a mess using all three styles at various places. The suggestions in Archive 14 hadn't been followed at all. As to my motivation...Yes, I feel that Mrs. Schiavo's memory should be treated with the upmost respect. I feel Formal Style conveys that, as does Informal, and that Journalistic does not.

That said, you asked what the reasoning was. I told you why others changed it. You go after me. Hello?--ghost 22:22, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Wait a second? Why should Terri Schaivo's memory " be treated with the upmost respect" any more than any other dead person's memory? That is such a blantantly POV statement I don't know where to begin. It's also POV for you to say that Informal style, i.e. calling someone by their first name, conveys respect. Actually, it generally conveys the opposite: familiarity, which isn't anything like respect. It's an invention of YOUR mind that people who "choose their noteriety" should be referred to in one style and that others, whose "memories deserve [more... how else should I say it? You've quantified it by saying sh. deserves a certain type of respect that others don't] respect," should be referred to an entirely different way. That's a total self-created belief system, and nothing to do with Wikipedia policy. I also didn't say you couldn't have a POV. I said I think you have trouble keeping that POV in check when you hit Edit. How else to explain this idea that Terri Schiavo "deserves" the "utmost respect" that others evidently don't deserve, and that we should refer to her in a unique way because of it. Moncrief 22:31, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that fact that I have a POV does not make me any more or less empowered in this matter. And, as you've ignored, I have made quite an effort to keep my POV here, rather than in the article. The Talk section is were POV should be welcomed, not flamed. I agree that Informal is less respectful than Formal. I told you, it was someone else's compromise. If you don't like it, fix it. As to "people of noteriety", this guideline is in every Manual of Style I've been able to find via the Web, and some that I've checked offline, including the Chicago MoS. Finally, I don't think Mrs. Schiavo should receive singular treatment. In fact, I spent alot of effort on the Village Pump and the MoS Talk page trying to get a clarification on if the editors of the article have the right to choose the style. We do. Every person, imo, deserves to be treated with respect upon death. Mrs. Schiavo is unusual in this regard because the events around became famous, not because she chose to be that way. Thus, I feel she deserves the respect accorded to every private person in Formal Style. Her, and you, and me.--ghost 23:21, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Theresa Marie Schindler Schiavo or just Theresa Marie Schiavo?

In the very first sentence of the article and in the infobox, it has her name listed as "Theresa Marie Schiavo". Would it be more appropriate to include her maiden name or just leave it as it is? I would include her maiden name, but considering this is a very controversial article and that I'm also rather new, I wanted to get people's opinions first. Thanks! Columbia 05:49, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that "Theresa Marie Schiavo, née Schindler" would be technically accurate, if not pedantic, and "Theresa Marie (Schindler) Schiavo" as is seen in high school reunion documents, would also suffice.

The hyphenated version used by some advocates is grossly POV and would probably offend her were she around to opine about it. Such a use is quite unconventional and represents a specific personal statement by a woman and is not one conferred by someone else. I'm unaware of any evidence that she ever used it.

RickK deleted quotations to the law -an inappropriate censure.

After I figured out how to use this technically difficult editing process, I notice that the citations to the law I posted -and linked -were deleted.

NickK writes on a discussion page "Your edits to the Terri Schiavo article are problematic. Your personal opinion as to her treatment and the legality of her even being placed in a hospice have no place in the article. RickK 06:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)"

Maby I was a little "biased" by stating that Greer violated the law (as a statement of fact), but that is in keeping with the intro in which it states that Terri "spent the last 15 years of her life in a persistent vegetative state (PVS)." Both her PVS classification *and* her "terminal" classification (which allowed her to be placed in hospice care) are disputed, and may not belong here as de facto statements.

In my opinion, Nick was out of line by carte blanche deleting the who section in his May 09 edits. He also deleted links to pages on The Register, at which I am the editor in chief ("my pages," so to speak). This may seem appropriate if I am promoting myself, but review those pages and note that these are in fact resources, particularly the "Court Cases" compilation -good resources no less than Abstract Appeal's slanted viewpoint that the judges never violated some laws. (Abstract Appeal is usually pretty good, but once in a while gets a little "slanted" or biased.)

What is the consensus of the community regarding these two points.

1) How the view points are displayed: Should the "PVS" classification really be shown as "She's in PVS?" ~ Or, instead, should it not be listed as "The trial court found Terri in PVS, and all the higher courts upheld this definition"?

2) Should NickK be permitted to willy nilly delete my links to the law? (If you disagree with him, you may revert back, as I am sometimes too busy.)

By allowing people like Nick to delete opposing points of view, Wiki becomes biased, but I am open to the idea of changing the language in my edits from a statement of fact to say, instead, that "many feel that Greer broke the following laws..." with an explanation.--Gordon Wayne WattsGordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 03:22, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Oops~ I was trying to place this comment in the little "archive" section at the top, not take up half a page, or something, but I raise two important concept points that need to be mulled on: I will leave this post and wait for replies.

Before you answer, keep in mind that the community will not accept some disputed things listed as facts and others listed as "some peoples' opinions" ~ maybe it would be best to state most or all of the points as differing points of view, even if they're fact. Secondly, removing brief cites to the law is arbitrary and heavy-handed. I challange anyone anywhere to disagree with that assessment. (Removal of links to my web paper, The Register, is not as serious as deletion of a cite to a relevent law, but listing of "my pages" was still a relevent link that fit in with the othetr links, and I would hope that my colleagues would see fit to support linking them, as much as you might want to link a relevent site you've created or found somewhere.)--Gordon W. WattsGordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 03:28, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Wikipedia has strict guidelines against vanity. If your pages are indeed relevant, and unbiased, then someone else will add it.

And no, trying to add it with an anonymous IP or a single-post sockpuppet does not count.--Fangz 16:02, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, it's unfortunate that you feel Wiki is awkward. It's better than some others. Oh, and you're thoughts will be archived in due time. I have deleted some of your links prior to today with reget and only following careful review. As to your contention that Judge Greer violated the law, I dispute it and deem it inappropriate on several levels:

• • Most of the laws in question are local or state, and were ruled in violation of the Florida or US Constitutions
  • Judge Greer's decisions in these matters were upheld by the Appellate, Florida, US District & US Supreme Courts
  • The plaintiffs in the effected cases exhausted their appeals, or neglected to pursue the issue

Thus, the issue of Judge Greer's alleged infractions is moot and heresay. At best, one could contend that, "...it is alleged...". To do otherwise is unwise, incorrect and potentially libelous. If you wish to do so in your paper, so be it. It's inappropriate here. As to your questions: 1) the diagnosis issue was discussed at length in the Archives with the concensus being that the article should use what was upheld in the various appeals. 2)Absolutely. I am too busy to undo most of your work. Or NCDave's, or FuelWagon's. This is the strength and weakness of Wikipedia & any opensource project. It is the sum of you and me and 1000 other contributors.--ghost 17:27, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

GHOST, thank you for replying. I am getting the hang of it, but let me point out that only ONE law was ruled unconstitutional -the Terri's Law that was "hastily passed" back in 2003. All the others were NOT. (Show me one other law that was ruled unconstitutional...)

The fact that Greer's decisions were upheld is moot for two reasons:

• • "Two (or 3 or 4...) wrongs don't make a right, even if those two ( or 3 or 103) wrongs are committed by different judges.
  • The law is the law, and the judges rulings were in conflict with the varios laws.
  • Your 2nd and 3rd points are the same, that the matters were upheld on appeal, and that appeals were exhausted. You are right here, but the rulings (and appeals) violated the law.

Where were you when your civics class covered American jurisprudence? The judiciary interprets the laws. The checks and balances in place for potential judicial error is the appeals system. When a judge rules a fact and it is affirmed on appeal, it becomes the law of the land. So, yes, two (or 3 or 4...) rulings do make a right in this country.

The appeals system in only one check and balance; others include the ability to impeach (both judges and governors and presidents) as well as the ability to call out the national guard. Also, two wrongs don't make a right, no matter who committed them. See e.g., my discussion on the Dred Scott decision, where the US Supreme Court ruled that Blacks were slaves, an upheld on appeal a lower court ruling saying the same thing. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

If, as you assert, Judge Greer's rulings were in conflict with various laws, how do you explain that they were upheld on appeal, multiple times, by various courts? There are only two possible explanations: all of the other judges and courts engaged in a vast conspiracy to subvert the statutes or you are dead wrong in your assertion. There's no third choice.

Let's get one thing straight - I never said there was a "conspiracy," even if there were, so don't accuse me of the conspiracy theory accusation. How do I explain they were upheld and could still be wrong? You're saying then, that it couldn't happen? I'll prove you wrong. See below, where I posted to ghost: "In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857))." (Let me point, Fuel Wagon, out that below I listed links to search engined, so I won't repeat myself here.) Whether it's a conspiracy, or merely a bunch of dumb judges acting individually, I don't know, and it doesn't matter -Most of the judges ruled incorrectly, and proof that it is not impossible is given by many stupid court ruling, particularly the case cited here. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:09, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Just because you (or NCdave) don't like a judge's ruling doesn't mean the judge was wrong (or acted illegaly).

Are you a lawyer? I'm guessing you're not, particularly based on your point #2 above (not to mention some of the spelling and grammar I see on your blog). If that's the case, perhaps you should consult one to see just what the incidence of unchecked judicial error is in our system. That's what you're saying when you assert that Greer, the 2nd CoA, the FL Supreme Court, the Federal Court, and the U.S. Supreme Court not only violated the law, but failed to reverse or at least remand for correction the error. Remember, an opinion different from yours not only isn't illegal, it's probably not even wrong.

You ask me if I'm a lawyer, and it's not simply because you're curious, but your clear insinuation is that I must be a lawyer to understand what in the heck I'm talking about. I will undermine that premise.

For example, we need only look at the U.S. Supreme Court justices; they are the highest lawyers in the land. (Yes, judges are merely advance lawyers because they must be lawyers before becoming judges under our current system.) Alright, you have the nine HIGHEST American Lawyers regularly disagree over a wide range of subjects and split 5-4 on many decisions. Now, obviously one side is wrong, as their votes are mutually exclusive --either they should have voted for or against a certain case. So, you're telling me that lawyers are smart? They may have book knowledge and technical information about laws, but in areas of common sense, they fall pitifully short. (Probably a good reason there are many lawyer jokes, but not nearly as many as for, say, janitors or plumbers.)

Furthermore, I got further than ANY lawyer, so that alone is proof that one need not be a lawyer to go far. True, I lost, but no one else got a 4-3 decision on any case or any rehearing motion. The closest anyone came to me was when Bush was defeated 4-3 for his motion to amend a petition (make a minor typo correction or the like). He was shot down 7-0 for his rehearing, much worse than what happened to me, so don't even go there.

As far as minor typos, we all make spelling errors, and considering what I get paid to fight for Terri, I do pretty good. Even on an absolute scale, FUEL WAGON, I make relatively few spelling or grammatical errors, so don't monkey with another man's monkey. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Your point that my allegations are hearsay is a good point, and, like I said, I will make that correction in my presentation --even IF I am right, I probably won't present it as fact but merely one theory.

FANGZ, your comment is not a bad idea, but sometimes a person has to toot his own horn. After all, you didn't wait for someone to post for you --you posted for yourself. Links to my pages truly belong with the other pages, because that section is for biased commentary, and all the pages listed there fit. Links to my court cases page belong also, as this is merely a compilation of many court cases, some of them mine --with little or no commentary. However, I will probably not post links to my webpages in their places at this time. Since I have not corrected the slight bias that I introduced when I posted certain things as fact, I do not deserve to post my links.

FUEL WAGON made some good comments on that subject above, when he suggested no one say Terri was PVS unless they offer documentation --and implied that it might not be a good idea at all. (I got the feeling he way suggesting we merely post the points of view as "points of view," not as fact.) His suggestions have merit, and it is with regret that I tore into his comments, but I answered him here all the same:

Whoah there. Don't drag me into this out of context. I tried rewriting the intro to avoid saying "Terri was PVS" simply because flat-earthers like you can't seem to get it into your thick skull that she was PVS and I'd rather morons who think they're a lawyer/neurologist stop vandalizing the friggen page. Every day or two some knucklehead comes in and whines "you can't say she is PVS because this is disputed." Well, that's not how it works. Flat earthers dispute the earth is round, but their fucking morons. Same goes for the ignoramousus who can't seem to get that Terri was PVS and a moron with a dispute doesn't change that fact. FuelWagon 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom

Although he was a butt-H*le here, I think I will survive, and in absentia I will accept his apology if he feels he was wrong there.

Wrong?!?!? Hell no. You tried justifying putting links to your personal website on the main Terri Schiavo article and that is complete horseshit. I checked out your site and it is complete POV conspiracy theories, through and through. Oh, and if you insist on writing massive tomes on the talk page that span many many paragraphs, you might want to consider signing each paragraph so the rest of us can figure out where your stuff ends and where someone's reply begins. FuelWagon 22:13, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

So? A lot of websites are biased, like for example, the Terri's Fight and Terri's blogs, and such. So, why aren't you deleting those websites? Afraid you'd get disciplined and banned, blocked, etc.? In all truth, my websites are less biased than the Terri's Fight, because I am not an immediate family member of Terris Schiavo, and thus have some objectivity, even if I agree with some of their views. QUESTION: Why don't you delete them, if you're so all over it for deleting biased links, which those are? (Another question that you can't and won't answer. Maybe you should take a deap breath and go out for a snack or something... go fuel up, Wagon.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:34, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, knucklehead, get your story straight. Someone ELSE deleted your biased, vanity links, not me. you whined about it on the talk page. And I posted a reply saying they deserved to be deleted. go bitch and whine to THEM about deleting links and whether they're afraid of being banned. why don't you go out for a snack and pay attention to who you're bad mouthing. FuelWagon 04:08, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Hey, FUEL WAGON, "LEARN TO READ" - I never ever said that you deleted anything! I simply asked why you didn't delete the other links, and you can't understand that I'm not accusing you of deleting anything, so it's no wonder you can't put together a cogent answer... **sigh** Yes, I do recall who deleted some of my edits, namely Rick. Of course, I made edits where I linked to and/or quoted State Law, and these edits were not deleted, which makes sense.

You fucking asshole. Here is your [diff]. and here are the excerpts from it why aren't you deleting those websites? Why don't you delete them, if you're so all over it for deleting biased links. Wagon Fuel never tells us why he's deleting the Gordon Watts links So don't give me this bullshit that you never accused me of deleting your precious vanity links. fuck off. FuelWagon 16:52, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I apologize for missing that. You must think I can remember everthing like some sort of computer. Let me tell you, in no uncertain terms, that I did a page search of the word delete and did not see that post of mine. I probably thought it was written by someone else as it was written in the third person. Remember, Fuel Wagon, when I did my search, I was still quite new and did not fully have a feel of the page formatting. (Also, your aberrant behavior may have been what initially caused me to think you were deleting my posts; If it quacks like a duck, it just may be a duck, so, if you don't want me to think you're a "delete posts" duck, stop quacking unnecessary complaints.)

OK, now that I'm owned up to my mistake (which occasionaly does happen), let me answer your other question, about why don't I delete those links. ANSWER: The look like relevent links. (If the only mistake I ever made was overlooking some post, tantamount to a typo, things would be great; Have you ever made a faux pas mistake?) --172.135.172.203 18:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You must think I can remember everthing like some sort of computer., stop quacking unnecessary complaints Wow. I don't know why, but after reading that, it almost feels like its my fault that you wrongly accused me of deleting your links. Have you ever made a faux pas mistake? Yeah, plenty of times. and when I do, I don't blame anyone but myself. FuelWagon 00:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Furthermore, you're the one that started slinging mud, and when I answered you, you blew a gasket. I never called your name; you, on the other hand, called me, and most of what you said was wrong. In a few areas where I overstepped my place, I made an apology and changed my direction, so don't get all bent about me "whining" -- that's what you did, and I answered all your criticisms where I've seen them, so chill out. (PS: Most people wouldn't admit they did anything wrong; you should be glad I did admit I may have been wrong in stating certain things as facts where they were disputed.

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 14:58, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 15:29, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Show me one other law that was ruled unconstitutional... *picks up gauntlet*

Dismissal of petition to invoke all writs, by the Florida Supreme Court in reference to the Congressional subpoenas

Refusal to overturn ruling against retrial en blanc of the Palm Sunday Compromise by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

Bush v. Schiavo, by the Florida Supreme Court in reference to Gov. Bush's authority

Need I go on? The supreme law of the land is the U.S. Constitution (last time I checked). This is interperted by the judiciary, not the legislative or executive branches. Thus, a legislative or executive body can enact a law that the sky is green. It is then green until it is ruled upon in court. Then is becomes what the courts rule it to be. Therefore, since the courts have ruled unanimously in favor of Judge Greer's decisions, he never broke the law. Because said laws were never valid to begin with. Welcome to U.S. Law 101. Have a nice day.--ghost 22:00, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

That is a very valient attempt, and you make some good points, namely that the courts more or less unanimously disagreed with the other two branches and the "Save Terri" side. However, as unfortunate (and wrong) as I think that was, I don't dispute that it actually happened. Nonetheless, ghost, please notice that the things the courts ruled on were all decisions in ~~interpreting~~ the law (except that one case of Terri's Law) -- all the laws that were used by both sides were ALL accepted as valid State and Federal Laws...all, that is, except the Terri's Law.

Now, building on the premise that both sides accepted all the laws as valid (e.g., constitutional), then we have a valid basis for me to post laws as "fact," which are unbiased and objective. Let me re-iterate and conclude: NONE of the laws -except the Terri's Law -were overturned as invalid / unconstitutional and thus cancelled out except the "state" Terri's Law passed in 2003. None were even questioned, except that one and the "Federal" Terri's Law, the "federal habeas review" law --but, even in that case, GHOST, we see that the courts never ruled that law unconstitutional --and CERTAINLY they NEVER "overruled" as unconstitutional this law here: Florida Law 825.102(3) >2004->Ch0825->Section%20102#0825.102 , which, if you read real closely, you'll see was violated by Greer. He denied not only feeding tubes, but also food, and remember that chapter 825 felony law makes NO excpetions for perople if they're "PVS," "terminal," or even if it's "their wishes," or even I fthe've got eating difficulties. (They refused to test Terri in recent times; what were they trying to hide, I wonder?)

what were they trying to hide, I wonder? OK, that does it. You're now in my "crackpot conspiracy theorist" list. Terri couldn't swallow. She was PVS. If Terri was consciously aware, responding to voices, and perfectly capable of swallowing, (she even snuck out to play tennis when no one was watching), the conspiracy required to pull it off for so many years and so many doctors and so many court cases is outrageous. I can only conclude you have a weak grasp on reality and a strong grasp on whatever dogma you cling to. Go play with your bible and stop trying to hang galileo. FuelWagon 23:16, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, that does it. You're now in my "crackpot conspiracy theorist" list. You didn't answer my question; Why didn't they test Terri to see if she really could eat or drink, FUEL WAGON? You simply stated your conclusion, the thing I asked you to prove, and then you used that unproved and unproven conclusion as proof. Can someone say "circular longic," or maybe "begging the question."

see previous post about "unfalsifibility" and conspiracy theories. See also "burden of proof" with regards to the person making the assertion. sorry, no "circular logic" or "begging the question" on my part, just pointing out your unfalsifiable, totally unproven, logical fallacy. FuelWagon 04:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You know, you really seemed normal, but you're busting loose in rabid slobbering, of late. Let me tell you that if you really had an argument, you'd use it, not just make fun of the other side and sling names like crackpot.

Ok, let me help you out here: You know why they didn't test Terri? Well, for one, she might be able to eat and drink a little, and this would embarrass the "good judge" who had, for so many years, denied her testing, therapy, rehab, etc.

For another, if she talked, testimony of spousal abuse might ensue, and don't give me that "PVS" lame excuse: Even IF she wasn't able to talk, she might have been able to point to a keyboard, kind of like this kid I saw in Believer's Fellowship [1], where I went to church yesterday morning. This fellow sort of flopped around like Terri Schiavo did when she was alive, but when I asked him his name, he pointed out on a keyboard on his wheelchair "W-I-L-L," and thus we wonder if Terri could've done similar. Let me tell you, Mike Schiavo would have NO motive for wanting her to stay silent and be denied speech therapy --unless he beat her. (Mind you, I'm not accusing him; I don't know his motives ~ maybe he's just weird or crazy, lol.)

if she talked, testimony of spousal abuse might ensue And monkeys might fly out your butt. And the world might be flat. and elvis might be alive. and you might be a twit. (mind you, I'm not calling you a twit, I'm just saying it might be true.) FuelWagon 04:23, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

The Great Fuel Wagon wouldn't answer my question because all roads lead to my answer above. Better fuel up a little more before trying this lame logic. (Hint: Simply avoiding a question is not the right way to win converts to your point of view.) BOTTOM LINE: We have no busniess debating the views, as this page itself says: "Please Use This Talk Page Correctly...The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better." We should simply accept that others views differ and be glad that we are able to contribute to the chronicle of the history in an unbiased way, and not feel the need to name call if we want to disagree with some point of view. I didn't even disagree with you; I simply asked why she would be denied examination if the courts had nothing to hide; maybe it was your guilty conscience that provoked you? "Remember, an opinion different from yours not only isn't illegal, it's probably not even wrong," as you said above --is still true for all of us, including you. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:22, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

What is your problem? I didn't answer your question because what are they trying to hide? is an assinine conspiracy theory that is UNFALSIFIABLE. don't get all logical falacy on me when you're asking me to disprove something that is unfalsifiable. "prove to me they don't have something to hide." Sorry. Logic don't work that way. You make the assertion that they're up to something, then you gotta supply the evidence to prove it. i.e. wikipedia cannot say Greer and Michael are in conspiracy unless you can prove it. She was denied swallowing tests because she had already had several and failed and because there was nothing to show that VitalStim would work on a PVS patient. No guilty conscious here. just someone who refuses to swallow your conspiracy theory. FuelWagon 04:15, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

You can read the law and my post her and come to your own conclusions, but you see what I'm saying... (PS: I wasn't using CAPITOL letters to yell, only bold face stuff, and I don't know the bold face or underline funtion yet; maybe next time.)--Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 18:31, May 9, 2005 (EST)

It's Rick, by the way.  :) Gordon, thanks for remaining civil, a lot of people don't when their personal opinions are challenged. See FuelGauge above. I deleted the links to your page because they are vanity links, which are deprecated on Wikipedia, and they don't add anything new to the argument. I also deleted your interpretations of Florida law because, as said, they were your personal interpretations, and violations of the Wikipedia policy of Neutral point of view. If you want to point to a legal expert who supports your contentions, then by all means, add them in a neutral style. But they're moot, since all of the legal appeals decided that your points are not valid in Florida or federal law, so they also don't really mean much in the whole scheme of things. So far as I know, none of your interpreations were argued before the courts, and even if they were, the courts ruled otherwise. RickK 22:42, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

Hey, Dick, I mean, Prick, er, uhm Rick, I get uncivil when assholes accuse me of deleting their links and harassing me about it, WHEN I DIDN"T FUCKING DELETE THEM. SOMEONE ELSE DID. I also get uncivil when assholes throw out conspiracy theories like "what are they trying to hide?", something that is unfalsifiable, with no evidence to support it, and they start HARASSING ME ABOUT LOGICAL FALLACIES, BEGGING THE QUESTION, AND CIRCULAR LOGIC. And I get uncivil when someone gets condescending towards me, telling everyone how "uncivil" I am, WHEN THEY"RE OBVIOUSLY TALKING OUT THEIR ASS AND HAVE NO CLUE WHAT"S BEEN GOING ON LATELY. FuelWagon 04:33, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Uh, Fuel Wagon, See the section a few paragraphs above this where it says "Hey, FUEL WAGON, "LEARN TO READ" - I never ever said that you deleted anything!"

As far as me asking you a question, yes I did ask you what they judge had to hide. Maybe he had nothing to hide, and if that was the case, you could've said so, but then that begs another question: If the judge had nothing to hide, then he must have had another reason for insisting Terri get no swallowing tests and trying to order her immediately cremated upon death. That effort didn't quite happend, but he did succeed in making sure she got no swallowing tests and was not examined by additional doctors, who would have examined and treated her for free. So, you get upset at me asking a question? Better go in for a checkup -you have a low threshold for irritation. I'd hate to see what happens if someone really did violate your rights or something, ... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:37, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Um, Gordon, I think you need to hit the caselaw links. In the second, re:Palm Sunday Compromise, the 11th Circuit actually states that the Compromise was unconstitutional. There's your other case. As if that wasn't enough, the other rulings state violation of Seperation of Powers, which is unconstitutional. In fact, although only two rulings use the word, every other ruling points to conflicts with either the Florida or U.S. Constitution. But I digress. You are incorrect in your fundemental premise that, "all the laws that were used by both sides were ALL accepted as valid State and Federal Laws". Once they were ruled against, these sections of these laws no longer applyied to the case. Thus, for Judge Greer, it became No Harm, No Foul. You are welcome to disagree. Many of us do. That is irrelevant. We CANNOT state as fact that Judge Greer, or anyone else, committed a crime for which he (or they) has not been found guilty. Much less, even indited on.--ghost 23:07, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

GHOST, the other Terri's Law may HAVE been overturned; I don't recall, but my point being that the other laws were not --even IF they were not applied to this case. Your inuendo that lack of indictment is proof Greer is innocent is no less false than a claim that the Dred Scot judges were innocent bacause they weren't charged with high crimes in their ruling that Blacks were slaves. (They were not charged, but they WERE guilty, and their ruling led to the Civil War.)

In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857)).

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&q=%22negro+might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery%22

http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/%2522negro%2Bmight%2Bjustly%2Band%2Blawfully%2Bbe%2Breduced%2Bto%2Bslavery%2522

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22negro+might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery%22&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8

RICK, I was the first person anywhere to do a habeas or QUO WARRANTO, and many of my arguments or tactics WERE in fact borrowed by others like Pat Anderson, and possibly David Gibbs, who definitely compied some of my legal moves, as I recall when I was in the Tampa court and heard him argue before Wittemore.

“Gordon, thanks for remaining civil” No problem Rick. Now, you talk that "legal expert" language, eh?

At: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:FuelWagon I claim to be the foremost legal expert. Let me quote from his page:

OPEN QUOTES I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side, the side that lost in court. Compare how well I did in court with the lame governor, and ignore, for a moment (if you could) that he got lots of press, and I didn't.

Now, just why do you think that I scored better than the Gov.: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf who lost 7-0 on rehearing motion, when I lost here: http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf in the SAME case 4-3, trying to save Terri? (He got a 4-3 decision to amend his petition, but that was minor; when we both tried to get rehearing, I was more successful, and NO ONE else got a higher percentage of panel votes in attempts to dave Terri: My 4-3 loss represented about 42 or 43% of my panel. You do the math,...) "Things that make you go 'hmm...'." CLOSE QUOTES (My case was SC03-2320, Bush's case was SC04-925; I probably did better because he asked that new law be written, whereas I asked that enforcement of current law be had, where current state laws on abuse were pretty good.)

However, RICK, it is perfectly ok to post the fact that some people dispute, for example, a disgnosis of PVS, or that some people felt hospice wasn't appropriate, and it's furthermore OK list some relevent law. (So long as both interpretations are mentioned, and the outcome is mentioned, it's OK; In fact, sometimes there may be 3 or 4 possible theories as to what happened.) That's merely reporting the events as they happened. The fact I might add a cite to a law is actually pretty mandatory, and certainly welcomed.

Earlier, FUEL WAGON said: "Second, do we HAVE to say "Terri was PVS." ??? I mean, I wrote a version that states the facts of the overwhelming diagnosis in that favor" 172.138.142.29 I had initially interpreted that to mean that he didn't want people to say she was PVS unless they offered proof. Actually, I think he meant that they didn't NEED to say she was PVS because the proof was supposedly overwhelming.

While I initially may have misinterpreted him, his point was a good one: Doon't list conclusions, just facts.

However, I thought that the standard was to go ahead and list something as a fact if you could back it up, which ticked off the community... oops!

Now that I've decided to list the various alternatives, and list them as theories, WIKI can get a true encyclopaedic description of various viewpoints, so I don't see why that approach can't be taken. (When I quote a law that has been accepted as OK by all sides, I will list it as "fact." When I list an interpretation, I will list it as a theory.)

After all, even though we know that the earth is NOT flat and that Jews are NOT inferior, I'm sure various encyclopedias have entries that chronicle the fact that these viewpoints were held by some people, and offering some of their arguments.

Does this approach not have merit? Thx for the collective review to my colleagues. --Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USA 19:13, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Wagon Fuel is creating lots of discussion in the category above.

In the category above, it is hard to tell, but Wagon Fuel never tells us why he's deleting the Gordon Watts links (that are admitedly somewhat biased) and not deleting the Terri's Fight / Terri's Blogs, etc.,. websites which (by their very name) are real biased.

I made a typo here; Fuel Wagon was apparently not the one deleting my posts, but his complaints made me believe this, and later when he complained I was falsely accusing him, I could not find my post here and remembered only that RickK deleted my links. I apologized for my oversight above. All the same, differing theories (and the arguments supporting and opposing said arguments) are a part of history, and should be recorded in the Encyclopedia, er... WIKIpedia --172.135.172.203 18:54, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

And, apparently I also forgot to be signed in when I posted that. "Not this time," though. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:02, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

He also never tells us why the Judge was so adament on refusing to test Terri Schiavo for an ability to eat or drink or get speech therapy or physical rehabilitation, etc.

I'm making this new category because he dialogue above is so convaluted and hard to follow, so here's the heads up. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

look, jerkoff, you're really pissing me off now. You're the one generating a lot of discussion here, not me. You throw out conspiracy theories with no evidence and ride my ass because I don't disprove them? My logic is convoluted and hard to follow? What the fuck? You don't HAVE any logic. You have UNANSWERED QUESTIONS. what do they have to hide? that's not logic you moron, that's begging the question, and the lack of an answer does NOT mean its true. YOU have to prove they have something to hide. I don't have to disprove this kind of crap. you have to prove it. Stop talking about logic because its painfully clear you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. logic requires that the person making the assertion supply the proof. You don't get to jump to the conclusion and demand that I disprove all possibilities. That aint logic. it's pulling conclusions out your ass. FuelWagon 04:40, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Get a grip Fuel Wagon. You don't need to cuss to make a point. Number TWO, I don't believe I ever said there was a "conspiracy," but even if I had, I would have evidence, namely the laws of the land >2004->Ch0825->Section%20102#0825.102 clearly state in section 825.102(3) of Florida Statutes that it's illegal to deny a handicapped or elderly person food or necessary medical services. In case you didn't know, a judge is allowed to interpret the law, not rewrite it. (This is legislation from the bench and is prohibited by the separation of powers limitations.) If the judge doesn't like the law, he can ask his lawmaker to change the laws... I don't have to prove anything, because it is already proved in the law. Let me quote it for you, if you can be literate enough to read -" "Neglect of an elderly person or disabled adult" means: A caregiver's failure or omission to provide an elderly person or disabled adult with the care, supervision, and services necessary to maintain the elderly person's or disabled adult's physical and mental health, including, but not limited to, food...A person who willfully or by culpable negligence neglects an elderly person or disabled adult without causing great bodily harm, permanent disability, or permanent disfigurement to the elderly person or disabled adult commits a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084." Dig? Got it yet? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 15:48, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

It seems pretty clear that the Gordon Watts link is a vanity link, which are generally discouraged. As for the second one, there's a lot of speculation inherent in that, which is probably a bad idea unless it's comprehensively cited. Furthermore, if the judge agreed with the PVS diagnosis, then by definition she can't eat, drink, etc. so personally I don't see why we need to say anything about it. JYolkowski // talk 02:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Which link? I have several, some of them "commentary and advocacy," placed in the right categories, and some of them flat hard facts and court docs. Maybe you are a vanity link, but let me assure you that listing ones own website is NOT forbidden, so long as the person has contributed something. I did better than Jeb: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm ...so I guess this qualifies me -whether or not I got lots of press on it. Look at the vanity page from WIKI: "An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous. There is presently no consensus about what degree of recognition is required for a page to be included in Wikipedia (although consensus exists regarding particular kinds of article, for instance see WP:MUSIC). Lack of fame is not the same as vanity...Furthermore, an article is not "vanity" simply because it was written by its subject. Articles about existing books, movies, games, and businesses are not "vanity" so long as the content is kept to salient material and not overtly promotional."

If you feel the link is relevant, I would suggest getting someone else to add it. That would render my previous argument invalid. JYolkowski // talk 20:56, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Ok, that being said, here are comments I made to someone who claims to be neutral, but may not be, and I make them here to save them in case some nut deletes them... Compilations

COMMENTS: --NEUTRALITY, you edited out the web pages linking court documents; That was not very neutral. You also did not leave a comment about it. Do me two favors: #1 either leave a comments explaining why Conigliaro's page of documents remains, while you deleted mine, and don't give me that "biased" stuff: All the pages are biaed, including Conigliaro's because he makes the biased claims, in a recent Sp Times article, in which Conigliaro said that judge Greer followed the law: http://sptimes.com/2005/04/30/Tampabay/Lawyer_shares_lessons.shtml #2 FAVOR: Please tell me how I can include a comment when I edit something. JUST TO GET YOU ATTENTION NEUTRALITY, I will repost the court doc links, and expect an answer pronto. These pages are court documents, and let me remind you that I got further than both Conigliaro and Bush combined, in my near win in court: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm "Florida Supreme Court splits 4-3 on surprise last-minute filing in Terri Schiavo Case," so I contributed a little more than them or you, and thus I and my court doc web pages are a part of history, jsut as is Conigliaro, Bush, Gibbs, etc. GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida Now, don't start a Wiki war: You know I am right and that you have no valid complaint; You're just picking on me because I'm less well known than the former, and that is not a valid reason to pick on me. The pages are documents, not advocacy; LEAVE THEM ALONE!

• The Register's Geo mirror compliation (legal documents relating to the Schiavo case)
• The Register's Hometown mirror compliation (legal documents relating to the Schiavo case)

Advocacy and commentary

COMMENTS: This is advocacy, and it IS expected that these pages will be biased and NOT objective, so please do not go deleting them willy nilly. If you delete a page for being BIASED ADVOCACY, then please wait until a COMMENTARY ADVOCACY page appears as something it's not!!

• Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation
• Abstract Appeal
• Blogs For Terri
• The Empire Journal
• The Register Geo mirror
• The Register Hometown mirror
• End-of-Life Choices
• Hospice Patients Alliance
• Compassion in Dying, End of Life Choices
• Links and Dialogue re Schiavo by Reason McLucus & Jalexson

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:53, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Swallowing Tests

It is clear from some of the dialogue above and in the archives that the Flat Earthers have not even read relevant materials. If you would only read the Wolfson report you would see that Terri had swallowing tests on three different occasions; 1991, '92, and '93. What did you think recent tests were going to show; that after twelve years in whatever state you want to call it that she had regained her ability to swallow when more recent CT scans had shown increased cortex atrophy? Please, do yourself and the rest of us a favor and go read the report. Or is Wolfson part of your grand conspiracy?

Well, hello, person who doesn't sign your name! If swallowing tests were such a bad idea, then why did Wolfson reccomend that Terri have swallowing tests performed in his GAL report? Maybe you should go back there and do your homework.

(condescending and ironic lecture snipped)

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Again, read the report. Wolfson was trying to forge common ground between Schiavo and the Schindlers. Getting them to agree to swallowing tests was part of that mission. Schiavo was convinced from the '91, '92, '93 tests and didn't see the necessity of confirming what had already been confirmed--three times. You and others seem to need four. The Schindlers were hanging their hat on any scrap of hope they could find; witness the 4½ minutes of video out of four+ hours they released. Person who doesn't sign his (or her) name. (Get over it.)

Would someone please tell me how I can place comments in the history page to explain why I changed what I change? For example, Moncreif graciously fixed a spelling error where I said "lot's" instead of "lots" --and he made a comment about it being an embarrassing error in the history page. How'd he do that, somebody...?

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 03:06, 10 May 2005 (UTC) (Which is really 11:06pm or so in Eastern Standard Time)

When you click on "Edit", a box with the text to edit is opened. Just underneath that box, it says "Edit summary". There may be something in that field, to show what part of the page you're editing (unless you clicked on the option of editing the whole page; that option is at the top). If has something filled in that shows the part of the page you're editing, it will have /* at the beginning, and */ at the end. As I type these words, the Edit summary says, /*Swallowing Tests*/ . Just type a summary of your change immediately after the /* */ bit. So, it could say "/*Swallowing Tests*/ removed comma", or something like that. If the the /* */ bit isn't there, then just type "removed comma" (or whatever) directly into that place. Ann Heneghan 20:47, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Burial : 39 Days Later

Last week I wrote that it's time for a placeholder that the ashes of Terri Schiavo have not been buried. At the time of her death, the press accounts were that Michael Schiavo was permitted to cremate the body and was required by the court to disclose to the Schinder's any burial or memorial service.

I was challenged by anonymous that the Schindlers may have been informed of a burial and chose not to make their knowledge of this public. This is highly improbable but on May 6 it was possible. Today it's no longer possible. The Schindler's have said that they have not been informed of the burial and Michael Schiavo was unavailable for comment. AP

Proposed wording: On May 7, 2005 the parents of Terri Schiavo made public a complaint that they had not been informed if, when, and where the ashes of their daughter were (or are to be) buried by Michael Schiavo. He was ordered by court to provide this information to them.

The wording can be left intact if nothing else happens, or changed depending on events. patsw 03:04, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

I support that. Ann Heneghan 05:30, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Sources--Legal Documents

I do not see any discussion on the talk page(s) as to why this subsection was added; so, I am going to advocate that it be removed for the following reasons:

(1) it's redundant--when a court document is cited in the article, it already has a direct link to the court document as a footnote (or, it should--if it doesn't, this can be easily inserted) and the "compilations" section already has three excellent sources for the court/legal documents: findlaw, UM, and abstractappeal, of which the latter two provide a comprehensive, chronological access to the relevant documents; and,

(2) this particular list is selective, without having a rationale for its selectivity.

--Mia-Cle 23:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

On the surface, this section seems like a good idea because of the large potential impact this case(s) will have on U.S. law. However, the article is currently 18pgs, and we need to trim for legibility. Perhaps we could relocate the section to the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article? I'd hate to waste the effort. Otherwise, let's leave it to Findlaw, and trim it. I don't see were it's selective, but I may not be the best judge.--ghost 21:50, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Relocating to the government involvement article works for me. I'd prefer not to limit the legal document sources here to findlaw, as findlaw isn't as comprehensive as UM and abstractappeal.--Mia-Cle 23:59, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Watts: what, specifically, are your issues with regard to this article

I have tried reading the above to determine what, exactly, are the issues being addressed in the above talk sections (that begin RickK and Wagon Fuel), but the digressions overwhelm whatever point is being made (or not made). So, Mr. Watt, could you please state with some specificity exactly what your issues are with respect to the article as written or edited, and what your particular stand is with regard to that issue? That way, we all can address these points. For example, I think you are attempting to address the following:

(1) how PVS is handled in the article's introduction, and

(2) the court document links within the article.

Could you please state concisely what your stand is? For me, with regard to point (2), I think that the court document links should be to an external source such as the UM site because these documents tend to have some indicia that they came from a court source, the UM website is a stable site (i.e., not likely to disappear anytime soon), and the UM site is neutral. My preference for court-filed motions is that they be complete--motion with accompanying affidavits. --Mia-Cle 23:38, 10 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, First, Miami-Cleveland, I should apologize to EVERYBODY for arguing about the merits of my argument. I was wrong, because this is not the place to do it (e.g., this page clearly says: "The Talk pages are not a place to debate which views are right or wrong or better. If you want to do that, there are venues such as Usenet, public weblogs and other wikis," a quote which someone else clipped/deleted when I used it earlier to blame others before I saw my error here.)

Someone else started arguing about whether my case was valid or a conspiracy theory, and I took it to a whole new level. We were all wrong to do this, most of all me, because this page is not the place for that type of discussion -it is an inappropriate use of space because this page should be limited to discussion of whether the edit is actually something we'd see in an encyclopedia, describing Terri Schiavo.

Ok, to answer your question, yes, I do have some problems with the way this page is handled, and thank you for asking. There are at least five (5) areas in which there is major dispute (plus a #6 area of additional dispute), something that is a "historical fact" that should be included in any encyclopedia, namely the following:

1) Whether Terri was PVS

2) What her wishes were

3) Whether she was terminally ill and whether this disqualified her placement in a hospice

4) Whether Terri was illegally denied therapy, rehabilitation, examination, etc.

5) The "big" one: Whether Terri was the victim of felony abuse, and whether certain rulings of the judge to deny regular food and water (after the feeding tube were pulled) stepped over the line and violated various state and federal laws.

You know that any good encyclopedia tells us that Nazis thought Jews were not fit to live, and while most of us know that is garbage, these encyclopedias also list things that the Nazis used to try to prove their argument. If Nazis get chronicled, I certainly do. I think my arguments are right, and let's not forget that I played a central role in the Schiavo case, and, in some instances did better than the Florida Governor in court. Most or all of you all played no role in this saga.

Additionally, some people get bent over actual human errors (like my spelling, which I fixed here), things that, in all likelihood, did not harm them. I would be open to making restitution of I damaged or harmed someone, have faith, that's true; however, we should focus on presenting the historical facts, because even if we all agreed, it would be hard enough.

6) That being said, if my success in court was so great, even in the absence of news coverage (see e.g., http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Vanity_page#Does_lack_of_fame_make_a_vanity_article.3F ), my success should merit coverage. After all, do a web search, and you'll notice that many of these "big" Blogs list me and my websites. Maybe it was bad social skills for me to post my own site, which, of course, is biased, but is not the Terri's Blogs, and the official Terri’s Fight site biased? Even Matt Conigliaro, the attorney who hosts Abstract Appeal, is biased, as evidenced by his comments to the reporter in which he claims that the judges followed the law: http://sptimes.com/2005/04/30/Tampabay/Lawyer_shares_lessons.shtml GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida this is false, as far as I'm concerned, even though he rarely lets his bias slip out. Abstract Appeal, while not as correct, is clearly less biased, but if the official website for Terri Schiavo's family is listed, and it is clearly the most biased site (taking stances on the husband that even I am not sure about), then why should the two Register mirror front page news be omitted from the "commentary / advocacy" links --and also, why should The Register's Court Cases compilation be omitted? It too is a "compilation, which fits in one of the top categories.

We all have our personal opinion, but, at this rate of argument, we aren't going to do encyclopedias justice at recoding the actual facts. FuelWagon, for all his ranting and raving, makes one good point earlier that bears repeating: We should not state anything as fact unless it is unambiguous and agreed on by all people, even if it is only to shut up the nuts on either side of the argument. So, when I decide to post a link to a state or federal law, if it is not lengthy and if it's relevant, it should NOT be stricken, thank you. These encompass my arguments as best as I can see them. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:25, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

FuelWagon makes one good point earlier that bears repeating: We should not state anything as fact unless it is unambiguous and agreed on by all people Uhm, no. That is not what I said. If we wait until an assertion is agreed on by all people before it is considered fact, then we could't even say the world is round. All I said was that the flat-earthers start foaming at the mouth like pavlov's dogs whenever they see the three words "Terri was PVS" put in sequence, so if we state the fact that she was PVS without triggering the rabid response of an army of knuckleheads, we might be better off. It's apparent to me now that the flat earthers will never be happy until wikipedia and the whole world agree to their point of view, namely that Terri was perfectly healthy, working as a telemarketer from her hospice bed at night, and sneaking out at night to play tennis after all the protesters left, and it was a vast conspiracy of her husband, a dozen doctors, many hospice workers, and every judge who worked on the case that kept her handcuffed to her bed for 15 years until her murder could be arranged. So, no, I don't think "fact" requires agreement by everyone on the planet. I simply thought wikipedia could avoid triggering pavlov's dog response from the more rabid folks out there. You, Mr. Watts, have convinced me of the futility of my suggestion. The Don Quixote's of the world will continue to tilt at this windmill to their graves, unmoved by objective reason, confident in the comfort of their delusion. Some folks just have to have an evil dragon to joust, and they've made Michael their dragon, and Terri is the helpless virgin princess sacrificed to add to his hoard of gold. There is too much personal benefit to give up when someone has cast themselves as the hero in their hollywood-movie version of life. Why be normal, average, everyday, human in an objective and somewhat mundane world when people can cast themselves as the knight in shining armor trying to save a helpless maiden from an evil dragon? FuelWagon 18:46, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

I couldn't have said it better.--ghost 22:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, so you didn't go that far in saying it; That's fine by me, and I'm sorry I'f I knocked you off your rocker by misquoting you, but two points bear mentioning at this point:

1) I see where you said: "Do people get my drift here? If you're going to say the three words "Terri was PVS" then the list of overwhelming evidence in the intro is pointless when people can read it later. The idea was instead to list the overwhelming evidence, including the minority of evidence that disputes it, and let the reader decide," but I'm not sure if you're trying to say we should say Terri is PVS and list some documentation -or, instead that she's merely been "declared" PVS by the courts. OK, are you happy, now? Whatever you meant, I think its best that most points not be listed as "fact," unless it something like a quote from a law, which is unambiguously the law (so long as it has not been ruled unconstitutional). People may disagree with the rulings or the laws on the books, but their mention as historical facts is not disputable -i.e., the Laws DO say certain things, and the courts HAVE ruled certain ways, whether they are true or merely judicial activism; We should let the reader decide the "truth" and merely present the bland, dry facts.

But the fact is that the courts ruled her to be PVS and that decision was upheld many times. That's as close to "facts" as you can get. Once the courts rule someone guilty of murder, you don't have to say "allegedly" anymore, you can say "John is a murderer". FuelWagon 19:47, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Close, but no cigar. When there is this much dispute, it is traditional to say that "so and so was FOUND to be guilty," not "so-and-so WAS guilty," and the former statement would be just as correct. A Ghost below echoes your points, but misses the point that only 1 or 2 laws were found unconstitutional, not the whole lot of them, and I make brief comment... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

2) My post, and your response were gone when I looked at this page a moment ago, but appear here in the edit dialogue. Is some high-WIKI admin tampering with the editing and display features?

In conclusion, let me reiterate that the good encyclopedias list both points of view on controversial topics (like should the Nazis have killed lots of Jews) --and also these good encyclopedias indicate the arguments that each side used to support their respective views. WIKI shouldn't fall behind times here... --172.174.41.253 19:08, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Oop - forgot to sign. (PS: Duck Echo makes comments on my talk/discussion page, and I answered him. Duck Echo, in case you're reading, you can read my reply there on the merits of your points.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:39, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

That's as close to "facts" as you can get. Once the courts rule someone guilty of murder, you don't have to say "allegedly" anymore, you can say "John is a murderer".-FuelWagon

And that was exactly my point earlier. Anyone is entiled to privately state that the courts were wrong or misguided until their face turns blue. (And if you listen to the radio, many are...) But in our society, the law is what the courts say it is. If a "law" is on the books, but has been ruled unconstitutional, then it's not a law. Thus, it doesn't belong here, unless to mention that the ruling is disputed. Since the legal disputes have ended, it doesn't belong. If you don't understand this, I suggest you examine the Separation of Powers. This is why the appointment of judges is considered crucial by both sides.--ghost 22:20, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Much of what you say is correct, but I will ignore your many correct statements, according to the Occam's Razor Rule [2], and correct the few incorrect claims or innuendos. Above I pointed out WHY you and FuelWagon were wrong in saying that you can call a person a murderer in disputed cases; Further, the law is not what the courts say it is -this would be the interpretation and application of the law, not the law itself; Next, you don't say it, but you hint that all the laws involved were declared unconstitutional in some way, shape, or form, by the rulings, but, in truth, only the 1 or 2 Terri's Laws were struck down, not any of the others, including my favorite felony law, 825.102(3), which you can look up at http://FLSenate.gov/Statutes ; You are wrong to say that chronicling of the disputes on PVS don't belong "since the legal disputes have ended." One sentence above this, you say: "...it doesn't belong here, unless to mention that the ruling is disputed." Well, MANY people around the world dispute this, whether or not the court is still "considering" it, so, as you say here, it doesn't belong unless disputed. Well, it is disputed, and thus it belongs, even according to your own words. As far as separation of powers is concerned, many people think the judge violated this doctrine, so, without addressing the merits of their claims here, this fact belongs. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:07, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

It appears that you and I will continue to disagree ad nauseum on substance. But perhaps I can offer a compromise. Where the issues have been legally resolved, but continue to be debated in the the court of public opinion, they could be described something like:

Judge Greer (took action)...Critics continue to contend that this was (their opinion). (footnote)

That's it. No dissertations. This would present the legal facts as such, while informing the reader that they may wish to dig deeper, and allowing them to do so. Both without POV.--ghost 12:54, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Mr. Watts: going back to your numbered issues, I believe that #1 and #2 are already covered, quite comprehensively -- with the findings of fact/conclusions of law (never overturned) that she was in PVS and her wish was to refuse life-prolonging procedures and then the Schindler position (that she was not in PVS and that this was not her wish) discussed in detail in the various sections.

Yes, point 1 is covered moderately well, except for the "Florida compromise" that I propose regarding the edit was going on about how to describe the PVS diagnoses. NCDave is one of the participants, and I hope my compromise is helpful, as I don't fully side with either side. As to point 2, I don't know if there was full coverage of dispute over what was TERRI'S "Point of View" (her wishes). --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As for points #3-6: these are arguments by the Schindler partisans and are far more appropriately discussed under the Schindler family position and the activism section. For example, under activism there could be a paragraph that includes your pro se filing, I believe someone else attempted or threatened civil arrest of Judge Greer (there may still be a link to it from the empire journal), the civil disobedience/trespass at the hospice, the death threats, etc., as showing the lengths to which the Schindler supporters were willing to go and a brief explanation of why. Nos. 1-2 are overarching issues (which as I mentioned above are already addressed), while #3-6 are really just a sideshow (try and shelve your personal involvement and look at the NPOV big picture) that simply don't merit an overinflation of their importance beyond being mentioned as part of the activism.

I did not (until just now) see your reply, and your suggestions have merit. Also, I corrected a minor capitalization error in your paragraph above and cast my "vote" in support of it, generally. (That's 2 "votes" already, even though numbers of votes are not the last word, I understand.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

As for your great success in court--I hate to burst your bubble and point out reality, but: you lost. Close only counts in horseshoes. 7-0, 6-1, 5-2, 4-3=Loss. You did not win. Further, there is no way of knowing (and there never will be) as to whether or not the Schindler attorneys or government attorneys considered the argument that you made as part of their overall strategy in addressing the key issue: would a medical treatment so change her quality of life that she would have changed her wish to refuse life-prolonging procedures. (obviously, strategy discussions are privileged). For all you know it was considered and rejected as a losing argument, which, in the end, it was (a losing argument). But as I mention above, it could be mentioned as a part of the activist actions.

My involvement would be "activism" regarding my website and my visits to the hospice, yes, but my legal involvement is not dissimilar to that of other "losers," in the end, as you say. Lots of other "losers" get mentioned all the time, do they not? ...maybe Pat Anderson and Gibbs team (Schindler family attorneys) and Ken Connors (Bush attorney) need to be mentioned as well. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Stop bringing up Dred Scott. That decision was overturned by constitutional amendment over one hundred years ago and is no longer good law. It's a non-issue not pertinent to the discussion. I don't believe any thinking person holds that each and every Supreme Court decision is the penultimate perfection of a decision. Further, Dred Scott probably tops every top ten list of worst Supreme Court Decisions ever, with Plessy v. Ferguson and Korematsu following close behind. If you wish to discuss pertinent case law, I recommend Marbury v. Madison for federal constitutional law/separation of powers and there are a number of relevant Florida decisions on the Florida constitutional law/separation of powers. I highly recommend In re Browning (Fla.) for the issues in this particular case (Schiavo v. Schindler). Finally, Dred Scott is a staple argument of the pro-lifers/anti-abortionists--raise the Dred Scott case when you wish to attack Roe v. Wade or any judge whose position is not in line with the pro-life platform--and that definitely does not belong in this discussion.

Good point, but remember that I did bring up Browning... in the "proper" setting, namely in court. THIS, on the other hand, is the court of public opinion, and Dred Scot did have a purpose, namely to indicate the weaknesses of the court system, but you seem to imply (or at least infer) that I should not over do it here. If that is the case, you good point is duly noted. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The alleged legal violations --in particular, the alleged violation of S. 825.102(3)-- simply doesn't merit more than a mere mention as part of the activist allegations. For one thing, you completely ignore the overarching right of every Florida citizen to refuse medical treatment. Florida Statutes have to comport with the Florida Constitution, not the other way around. You cannot use statutes to circumvent constitutional rights. This particular argument also seems to be based on a complete misconception of the role of the judiciary in this case--a misconstruing of the role of the judiciary that was dismissed as completely lacking merit by the federal judges in this case. If you wish to write a law journal article on this, feel free; however, it simply doesn't merit the amount of attention you wish to give it other than placing it where it belongs -- a mention in the activist section.--Mia-Cle 00:39, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The alleged legal violations --in particular, the alleged violation of S. 825.102(3)-- simply doesn't merit more than a mere mention as part of the activist allegations." Maybe, but it should at least be mentioned, and maybe expounded upon...? "Florida Statutes have to comport with the Florida Constitution, not the other way around." True, but no one said that this statute was overruled or nullified by the privacy rights of the constitution. Conversely, the judge did not address chapter 825, and this in and of itself is noteworthy. "...a complete misconception of the role of the judiciary in this case..." The judicial branch is not allowed by separation of powers to write law from the bench, only interpret good law, overturn bad law, or clarify gray areas --or areas in which laws conflict. However right I am, nonetheless, your question on the merits, however tempting, should best be restricted to -say -my own talk page, as we must limit our discussion to the merits of listing the item, not the merit of the item itself. (As you well know, both sides can't be right on Terri -either they should have don’t so-and-so or they shouldn't have; but, we SHOULD indicate both disputed views on major points of dispute --and their arguments, as the newly-minted "Gordon's Rule" (see below) dictates. (I knew that Gordon's Rule would elicit some response from The Wagon, how did I know...?) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:51, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

(I knew that Gordon's Rule would elicit some response from The Wagon, how did I know...?) Because you're Wiiiiileey Coyooooteee, suuuuuuper geeeeenious.... FuelWagon 03:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Surname Etymology

Should we mention about Schiavo's surname etymology? Schiavo means slave in Italian. I tried to insert it the other day but the edit was reverted. Is there any policy that regulates such actions? --Dennis Valeev 07:24, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm just not sure how relevant it is. The Schiavo family appear to be assimilated (even that word is silly to describe them) Americans who probably don't speak Italian. Why is the meaning of their name in Italian all that relevant? Moncrief 08:37, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

PVS diagnosis

I can't find anything that disputes that Terri was diagnosed as being in a PVS. While that diagnosis was challenged and continues to be controversial, the challenge itself does not undo the existence of the initial diagnosis. As a result, I'm going to change the HTML comment placed after "an irreversible persistent vegetative state", as the existence of the initial diagnosis is not disputed — even if one disputes the diagnosis itself.

Additionally, calling the diagnosis "nonsense" is strongly POV unless it is in an attributed quote.

Remember, the goal in this article is not to push one's POV; it is to document the whole situation as completely and neutrally as possible and to let the reader decide for him- or herself. - jredmond 16:34, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

More importantly, the diagnosis was adjudged in court as correct and upheld by every reviewing court, so that not only does it have a medical basis, it's a matter of legal fact.

That someone disagrees with it or believes something else, does not make the diagnosis POV or wrong. It's inarguable at this point. Duckecho 18:00, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Whether you are correct or not, your use of the court's decision to support your argument is invalid, as the courts have been shown to be an UNRELIABLE standard: In Dred Scott v. John Sanford, a MAJORITY of the HIGHEST court in the land, not to long ago held that "[T]he negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit." Chief Justice Roger B. Taney, writing for the Court. Dred Scott v. John F. Sanford 15 L.Ed. 691; 19 How. 393; 60 US 393 at 407.(US 1857)).

See e.g., http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery+for+his+benefit.%22

or: http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22might+justly+and+lawfully+be+reduced+to+slavery+for+his+benefit.%22&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8

or even: http://msxml.excite.com/info.xcite/search/web/%2522might%2Bjustly%2Band%2Blawfully%2Bbe%2Breduced%2Bto%2Bslavery%2Bfor%2Bhis%2Bbenefit.%2522

Use more than that to prove your point, but, even if you are right, the fact that it is a disputed matter makes it newsworthy, even as the dispute over slavery was newsworthy. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Gordon. If we were still living in a pre Civil War era I'd agree with you, but we are not. The point of all this is that a legal standpoint T. Shaivo was PVS. Yes the courts are wrong at times. Yes there is injustice in this country and there will continue to be for someone until the sun freezes into a cold hard ball. Nevertheless, it's important for the article to be as factual and NPOV as possible in relationship to the present. Let the reader decide what is right or not based on the facts at hand. What is in the article now is factual or based on information which is as close to factual as possible. This includes medical diagnoses.

For example, the article says She went into a coma for two and a half months, and was later diagnosed as being in an irreversible persistent vegetative state (PVS), a state that lasted until her death 15 years later.

Well, in case you're curious, WJ Bean, I don't have any problem with this language here. I think that the quote above is not only correct. In additiom, I think this type of expressing things should serve as a role model on how to express disputed points, that is, as "being diagnosed as" or as having been "ruled on" a certain way, not as "she was definitely and certainly PVS." That being said, I think the "tensions," if you call it, should subside at this point.

I indented your paragraph just a tad to make it easier to read, I hope you don't mind. Also, Duck Echo, if you're reading, let me say that on my talk page, when you made a minor error on the differences between the three standards of evidence, and later admitted you were wrong, I want to assure you that I was not trying to rub it in or anything. As you may notice, I have made a few errors, myself, some due to being new to WIKI, like when I broke the rule about discussing the merits of the case here. We know that this talk page is to discuss the merits of whether to add an item or not, and we leave the merits of the item itself to, say, an opinion page or editorials.

This does not mean that she was PVS, only that she was diagnosed PVS. Doctors are often wrong too, again though; some distant medico who has not even seen T. Shaivo qualifies as medical authority in this particular case. And such a practitioner most certainly does not qualify when the attending physicians who did examine her directly came to the same conclusion.

Whether the medico qualifies or not is a measure of the merits of the case. As we've been telling one another, the things we are trying to share with the annals of history are the important points, right or wrong, that are newsworthy.

So picking apart the sentence she went into a coma for two and a half months.. no one denies or disputes this. , and was later diagnosed as being in an irreversible persistent vegetative state... is also correct as a diagnosis is a determination of condition based on the available facts. Wjbean 23:28, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

We don't know if it was a correct diagnosis, WJ Bean. PVS is not understood well, even by the medical professionals, and we certainly don't need to consider whether it was a correct diagnosis or not. Remember the purposes of an encyclopedia, but my points above addressed the standards, I trust. --172.158.130.245 02:35, 12 May 2005 (UTC) Ouch! I was signed in and it didn't stamp my name, just my IP address... Probably because I opened up another browser, who knows. Let me try again to sign my name... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:41, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

How would we know to your satisfaction though? PVS is a state as defined by doctors and as diagnosed by doctors. It's not something whose definition floats on the aether, to be discerned by an observer who is acute enough. You're in it if they say you're in it. If the doctors who examined her diagnosed her as in PVS, she was in PVS. (It might help you to think about psychiatric disorders, many of which are similar -- they exist as labels for states of being decided by consensus among doctors. There are diagnostic criteria and if you fit them, you're suffering from the disorder.) You can argue whether courts should make decisions based on that diagnosis but it's correct if she fit the criteria. She did and it was. Grace Note 03:00, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Grace Note, the consensus of the community seems to be that if there is a disuted point that the point not be described as cold, hard fact. (RE-read the discussions on this talk page.) But, to RE-iterate, while not all WIKI-pedians agree, it is my assessment that the community consensus is that in cases such as you describe, the matter be described as "the court ruled so-and-so" or "so-and-so was diagnosed as PVS," etc., ad nauseum --not that "so-and-so is in PVS." If there is any major disagreement with my assessment, then we simply need to take a vote on the matter, dig?

The consensus of the community is just another way to hide your attempt to define FACT as an assertion that requires everyone's agreement. It doesn't. Terri was PVS. It is fact. The earth is round. It is fact. That her parents refused to accept the diagnosis doesn't change the fact. That a murderer's parents refuse to accept the conviction doesn't change the fact. You can keep trying to dance around this all you want, but the facts are that Terri was PVS. grow up. learn the scientific method. deal with it. FuelWagon 19:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

One other thing, Grace Note: With reference to your revision here, [3], I think you're picking on me and taking advantage of the fact that I'm new and have had a few disagreements and/or made a few mistakes of my own. I address that point at: [4], but I since I think I'm being I'm being picked on, I respectfully seek a straw vote of no less than nine participants, like on the US Supreme Court (where you have 9 justices), and here is the quote from your talk page, for others' consideration, thank you:

"I have two questions about the revision you made on the link for Schiavo:

1) How were you able to put in a comment in the history explaining what you did? (I'm new, so could you explain it nice and slowly and step by step?) Thx.

2) Yes, it is linked properly ...in the top of the article, but down below, a whole new topic emerges, evolving around issues of dispute, PVS being one of them, distinct and different from the intro. Thus, the reader may want to click on it. In fact, I think that the phrase "persistent vegitative state" which follows the initial abbreviation in that section, should also be linked. now, of course, anything beyond that would simply be unnecessary "bells and whistles," but a minimal number of obligatory links in the top of each separate section is nothing less than obligatory.

I feel I'm being picked on. What up! I feel we are being trivial and cheating the reader -or at least, making it difficult for him/her to follow the points and follow-up links, and this would be a good time to ask for a consensus on this point." --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:03, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Sigh. The Dred Scott case, viewed from the perspective of 148 years (not not to [sic] long ago) does look like a horribly wrong decision. However, we tend to look at it (and many decisions) from all kinds of angles except that of the law. In 1857 the justices had the Constitution, the Bill of Rights and little else on which to base their decisions. Recall, too, that the XIVth amendment, which almost certainly would have obtained in the case, was not available for another thirty years.

If you read their decision you will see that it boils down to Articles III and IV and that the crux of the matter is U.S. citizenship. Keep in mind that slaves were not considered the same as non slaves. Right or wrong, that harkens back to the very framing of the Constitution and the Three Fifths Compromise, if you'll recall. That's the mindset from which you must evaluate the Dred Scott decision. From the standpoint of the law, it was probably the most correct decision the court could make at the time.

148 years later we have different sensitivities, different legal frameworks, different culture and it isn't fair to judge the efficacy of the Dred Scott decision in light of our own awakening. The Court would have been wrong to so rule today, but it probably wasn't at the time with the tools with which they had to work.

This makes sense, and while not directly relevent to the value of the various edits, puts us in the proper frame of mind to anylize the edits that need to be done, I think.

Today, the courts have affirmed the judgement of PVS at every level. Are they wrong? Not in the framework of the laws with which they have to work. A good example is the issue of life support. Like it or not, Florida law defines the type of feeding tube Terri had as life support. If you don't hold that personal view, or if you live in a state that doesn't define it the same way, a ruling that discontinuation of life support is a legitimate extension of Terri's wishes as adjudged by clear and convincing testimony, seems wrong to you, but in fact, is in accordance with the law.

You're right, Duck, as far as feeding tubes being currently considered life-support by Florida Law, but standard food and water is not, and that is the crux of some of my disagreements, but let me stop there and not address the merits of the allegations themselves, and let us limit ourselves to discussion of the merits of the newsworthiness, if you would, of these various allegations. Since a very large segment of the population (maybe more than 50%, I don't know) holds a differing viewpoint than the trial court and the various courts above that level, then this item certainly becomes something worthy of chronicling. OK, everybody, we've seemed to have come to some tentative agreements, it looks like, and while I'm busy with my own personal responsibilies and desires (which limit my time here), the whip is cracked, and back to work. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:50, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

If you think that you have somehow reached a consensus that the article needs to be bloated with a load of alternative opinions, speculations, or theories that are at odds with the adjudicated facts of the case, then you are seriously misinformed. Yes, we can agree that the courts definitely ruled (based on the presentation of evidence by qualified medical experts) that she was in a PVS. Although I don't care if someone disputes the ruling or not, I suppose I could go so far as to agree that we can mention that it is disputed. But beyond that, to questions about what a fourth swallowing test would have accomplished, or whether her husband must have abused her therefore he wanted her killed to silence her, or if yet more CT scans than had already been done could possibly show evidence of a miraculous brain recovery, I'm not interested in memorializing the Flat Earth conspiracy theorists' views of what might have been. Duckecho 04:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

No, I am not a proponent of "hundreds of theories." Usually, there are only two competing viewpoints, and sometimes 3 or 4. (For example, some think Mike Schiavo abused his wife, some think he didn't, and some don't know. In this example, I fall into the third category, and opine that whether he abused his wife or not does not affect the validity of many of the other arguments over Terri's treatment by the court system.) You can relax. No one wants 1,000,000 theories -just the main opposing theories when there are some major public disagreement over something of note. "...I suppose I could go so far as to agree that we can mention that it is disputed. But beyond that, to questions about what a fourth swallowing test would have accomplished..." Most or all of us would no doubt "go as far as to" agree with your first sentence here, and since no one really knows what would have happened if so and so, you can relax and stop worrying about mystic speculation. We have more relevant issues to discuss. Let me point out that minor improvements, like insertions of relevant links, are unjustifiably deleted or reverted routinely. Can we act like adults here...? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:27, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

148 years from now it could be that we'll have different laws, different technologies, a different culture and some citizens in that time might view the Terri Schiavo case as a miscarriage of justice, but they'll have to consider the law at the time and the culture at the time, so they'll almost have to view it as a difficult but courageous exercise in jurisprudence in the finest traditions of American law. Duckecho 00:55, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

DuckEcho. This is precisely the point of a venue like Wikipedia. If at some later date T. Shaivo is found to have been aware and consious this article will most certainly change. The same can be said of M. Shaivo's actions. This is an "open source" encyclopedia. Changes in the known facts will be relfected here. Wjbean 13:19, 2005 May 12 (UTC)

Yes, but speculation about what might have been does not belong here. That's what Gordon wants to do. He wants to include all the opposing viewpoints for balance. The article isn't supposed to be balanced, it's supposed to be NPOV factual. They are not synonymous. Duckecho 23:20, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree. What I'm trying to point out here is that if Gordon or NCDave's assertions become more than assertions the article will most certainly change. And not due solely to their efforts either. Wjbean 01:10, 2005 May 13 (UTC)

Let me clarify: When I first got to WIKIpedia, I thought it was OK to say she WAS in pvs, but have receded from that view. I view the right way to explain it, as I've said before, in cases of disputed issues, to state that she was "diagnosed" or "ruled as" PVS. Dave's insistence that both diagnoses be mentioned initially is not bad, but they are mentioned a few sentences down, so all is well. No, I don't intend to write that Terri "was" or "was not" PVS. You can relax. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

EVERYBODY needs to quit having edit wars over the PVS diagnoses; Here's my proposed compromise: NCDave and the conservative crew want mention of the minimally conscious state right at the top; left-leaners don't want that. I support the left-leaners in their wish to omit it because after only a few sentences in the introduction, it DOES mention other doctors diagnosed Terri as minimally conscious. However, the article mentions both sides of the court doctors, but only one side of the NON-court-appointed doctors, namely the doctors that Mike Schiavo personally picked. This is biased presentation, and either they need to be deleted (this is option one) --or, (option two) there needs to be mention that a long line of doctors the Schindlers picked also questioned Terri's PVS diagnosis. The fact that many of them could not examine Terri personally is not Terri's parent's fault, and this fact would need to be mentioned is "option two is picked."

but only one side of the NON-court-appointed doctors, namely the doctors that Mike Schiavo personally picked. Wrong again, Sherlock. The article mentions the two picked by Michael AND the two picked by the Schindlers:

Two doctors selected by Schiavo's parents diagnosed her to be in a "minimally conscious state."

that "long line of doctors the Schindlers picked" who questioned her diagnosis never actually examined her, some of them basing their diagnosis off of video tape made and heavily edited by her parents, some basing it off of news stories. Those doctor's opinions do not deserve the same weight in the article as doctors who actually examined Terri. FuelWagon 03:04, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

They don't deserve any weight at all. They deserve mention but they are not even a consideration when we discuss whether she was in a PVS or not. This would be like equating I M A Wacko's opinion on the state of the moon's cheesiness with that of a scientist who had examined the moon rocks brought back from the moon, backed up by other scientists who have examined the moon spectrographically and found it to be nonfromaginous.Grace Note 03:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I have sided partially with both sides, and I think this compromise is fair. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:17, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Congressional subpoenas

In regard to the paragraph below.

Several members of the United States Congress who are also physicians offered medical opinions about her medical condition without having conducted their own examinations. Congressman Phil Gingrey, who is trained in obstetrics and gynecology, stated that, "The tragedy of the situation is that with proper treatment, now denied, Terri's condition can improve."

I'm not sure why this particular entry was struck. It's true, on the record, and lends to the NPOV requirements. I know that NCDave entries have become automatically suspect, but frankly this is a good entry. It should be allowed to remain in the article. Wjbean 20:10, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

NCdave's edits have become automatic reverts as far as I'm concerned. Unfortunately, he put in a bunch of stuff over several edits and people did some edits in between. I should have simply reverted to just before his first edit and have people redo their edits. But if someone else wants to put in yet another armchair diagnosis of a doctor who didn't examine Terri, sure, why not, the party's started. Isn't there a wikipedia article that has all the government involvement? I think it should be put there, rather than here. It qualifies alongside other political grandstanding as far as I'm concerned, and is only indirectly related to the the immediate issues around Terri, Michael, and the Schindlers. FuelWagon 21:13, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article has gone largely ignored in recent weeks. The discussion about the need for a seperate article can be found here. I agree that statements such as this are more appropriate in that article than this one. Perhaps a review of political issues in the main article is in order, with a bias to move the fluff to the sub-article(s). As it is, we're at 18pgs. It's getting unwieldy again.--ghost 21:31, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Copied Congressional Subpoenas and added NCDaves addenda to Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case Wjbean 23:47, 2005 May 11 (UTC)

Resolving link wars and review of the "Issues in Dispute" section

WIKI-wars have ensued, and one vote (me) is to include a minimal number of obligatory links at the top of each page. Grace Note and Viriditas seem to think the links to the PVS Wiki page don't belong except in one place.

LINKING WARS

Grace petitions her point of view: People will read thru the entire article.

My counterpoint answer: We have really unrelated links (like links to certain dates), so why not include links to relevant items -at the least, at the top of each sub-header.

Grace replied on my talk page: I can delete these date-type links as well, if I like.

This isn't a particularly good example. Full dates (i.e. month day, year) should always be linked as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Dates and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links), so that the user's date preference will be used. Other terms should be linked once per article or once per section at the most (see the MoS link above). JYolkowski // talk 00:16, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You're saying that dates are more "relevant" than technical terms used throughout the article. I respectfully dissent, and note that Fangz has proposed a compromise in which only one of my two revision links stay. While this is less than what I had hoped for the reader, I will accept it. I have no dog in the fight (no ulterior motive). --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

We have come to an impasse' if we argue over trivia such as this. While the others of you are welcome to "vote me down" to put me in my place (pick on the fellow who almost won in court -be jealous), that might not be such a good idea: Remember that we are here for Joe Average reader who may -or may not read from start to finish and see all the links. So, a few guideposts at the top of each sub-section is appropriate.

Other issues of dispute

Also, I believe I have outlined 5 or 6 other issues that are in dispute:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Mr._Watts:__what.2C_specifically.2C_are_your_issues_with_regard_to_this_article

While the PVS issue was given balanced review and documentation as far as the differing points of view (AND the arguments used to support the various parties' claims), the same cannot be said of the other issues.

Why doesn't some other person examine the other issues of dispute. I give my "vote" for that, and I've laid the framework by identifying several issues of public interest and in dispute.

As just one example, we have not broached the performance of the judge. Here's an example:

"The appeals courts and federal courts consistently upheld Greer's rulings. Nonetheless, major differences still exist in public opinion over whether the judge acted within the law. Proponents of the judge point to the appeals courts which upheld the judge and say that Jeb Bush and Florida lawmakers violated the separation of powers doctrine by trying to overturn a decision of a court. Opponents of this view hold that the judge overstepped his authority and violated separation of powers by ruling that both the feeding tube and oral food and water be denied. Proponents of this theory point to such statutes as >2004->Ch0825->Section%20102 825.102(3) as proof that the judge was not allowed by law to deny food and water, after the feeding tube had been disconnected. The supporters of the judge generally oppose this argument by claiming the Terri could not eat anyway and that it was moot, and the other side usually bring up the fact that this state law makes no exceptions for people with alleged eating difficulties, such as Schiavo..."

You get the picture. If someone expands this section, it will be a tedious job, but think it out, and if y'all like this idea, go for it.

Read. Re-read. Consider. Act. Later. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 09:08, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

See my proposal above. Intelligent people are sometimes verbose to a fault. FuelWagon's gift is succinctness. Grace is right, if the article weren't 18pgs long. Try this rewrite of the above:

The Appeals Courts and Federal courts consistantly upheld Greer's rulings. Nonetheless, major differences still exist in public opinion over whether the judge acted within the law. Both sides point to problems with the Separation of powers. [5]

I know that it may not address all of your or my issues. Perhaps that's for the best.--ghost 13:31, 12 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon is usually to the point, but like all of us, jumps off the wagon and errs from time to time -even if it is an error of omission, which is just as bad as an error of commission.

are you some kind of punk? exactly where did I make so many errors that it qualifies for your quantifier of "from time to time"? Lets keep the record straight here, you screwed up, accused me of deleting stuff I didn't, started a whole section on teh talk page specifically about it, and kept beating the issue until I finally gave you a diff. That I didn't answer your "begging the questions" is not an error of ommission on my part, it was a conscious decision to refuse to get dragged down into your conspiracy theories. "What are they afraid of?" doesn't prove jack. If that is your "omission", it only reflects your ignorance on how logical arguments work. It is not an error of ommision. Now you state as fact that I've made enough errors to warrant "from time to time" and hide it in ad hominem terms of "we all make mistakes from time to time". You messed up. Not me. Deal with it. FuelWagon 01:34, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You committed errors of ommission by not telling me why the judge has any compelling motive to deny testing in this very controverial case, but none of us had any business arguing over the merits of the case itself, as this page is limited to arguments over the newsworthiness of an item. I owned up to my mistake, and calm down; I'm not calling you a murder... You also committed errors or commission by telling me that links to my website did not belong becuase they were biased. True, they're biased, but is not Terris Fight dot org? And to defend your argument you suggested I delete all the links, as I recall, and if my recollection is correct, that is a stupid suggestion.

You committed errors of ommission by not telling me why the judge has any compelling motive You don't seem to get this, do you? I DO NOT HAVE TO ANSWER YOUR LEADING QUESTIONS. AND THE FACT THAT I DON"T ANSWER YOUR LEADING QUESTIONS IS NOT AN ERROR ON MY PART, IT IS BULLSHIT ON YOUR PART. UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE THEY HAVE SOMETHING TO HIDE, ASKING "WHAT DO THEY HAVE TO HIDE?" IS LEADING. "have you stopped beating your wife?" you suggested I delete all the links... Unless you show me a diff, that is heresay. but you're pretty good at heresay. accusations and no evidence. questions and no answers. maybe that's why you lost that court case you seem so proud of telling us about. FuelWagon 02:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's your diff: [6], where you say: "Why don't you delete them, if you're so all over it for deleting biased links" --here, you quoted me, but did not make clear that this is who you were quoting, and I took your statement at face value -and inferred you as the speaker, who was advocating deletion of all kinds of links. If this offends you, I am sorry, but that was neither the intent, not, in all liklihood, the actual result. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

So, what you're saying is that this really comes down to YOU blaming ME for your fuck up once again. You didn't recognize your own words. Yeah, I guess the part that says "and here are the excerpts from it:" is just too fucking obvious for you to figure out that I'm quoting you. Or the fact that all your quotes are italicized and listed one right after another. If this offends you, I am sorry. Ever hear of the term "conditional apology"? It's a way for a weasel like you to say a bunch of shit about someone and then weasel their way out of giving a full apology like "I am sorry." You're just a bunch of fucking excuses, aren't you? It's my fault you misread your words as coming from me. It's my fault that I might get upset at yet another one of your false accusations. And you again show a lack of balls in either giving a simple apology with no excuses or simply shutting up. Instead you put it back on me, again. No. Sorry. You fucked up. Not me. FuelWagon 04:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Don't put fuel on the fire. What are you accomplishing by arguing over trival matters? "De Minimis

adj. Latin meaning "of minimum importance" or "trifling." Refers to a small, little, or minuscule difference that is so tiny that the law will not consider it. For example: a $10 mistake is de minimus in a million dollar cover-up" [7] ALSO relvent to the point: Occam's Razor, which states: "In its simplest form, Occam's Razor states that one should make no more assumptions (or aguments, I add) than needed. When multiple explanations are available for a phenomenon, the simplest version is preferred."

That is, it is trivial and trite, I believe is the term and an argument or explanation on your part that is not needed as it serves no useful purpose: I am not threatening you, and told everybody earlier that if I had harmed someone, I would make good. In the very rare event that my mistakes (and I did commit some accidental error) injured you, tell me the damange, and I will work out some remuneration. Otherwise, replace adding fuel to the fire with adding fuel to the wagon, lol. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What are you accomplishing by arguing over trival matters? Hey, asshole. Printing stuff that basically say "FuelWagon makes errors from time to time" may seem like trivia to you, but it's fucking bullshit to me. Your "ommission error" argument is bullshit. It ain't trivial anymore. comprende? Here's the problem: You fucked up and you're too fucking immature to own it as your own problem, so you have to try and spread the blame around to people around you with your "FuelWagon, like all of us, makes mistakes from time to time." No. Sorry. You fucked up all by yourself here. FuelWagon 02:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You yourself admit you make errors, so I add nothing new to the situation, and it seems unlikly you are harmed, but subscribing to your theory that somehow that matter is not trivial, implying you are harmed seriously, I am greatly sorry and would apologize. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You yourself admit you make errors... So, once again, the blame is back on me? I am greatly sorry and would apologize. Oh, you would apologize, now, would you? You're a real piece of work, you know that? FuelWagon 04:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Regarding your suggestion, it is good, but it is also incomplete. Since I don't feel like addressing it now, I will support your suggested revision and wish to opine on NCDave's battles as well:

His suggestion that the various minimally conscious diagnoses be included in the very top is not unbiased, but, since it is included only a few sentences below also, it is not such a problem for the article if Dave does not get his way. That is, his revision was not biased, but it was minor and could be OK with or without it. However, as I've said before, we need to assume that the reader will sometimes jump to a subsection, and make sure the intros to each subsection are not misleading or incomplete.

The reader may want to know the story behind the other areas of dispute, which leads to the "Gordon Rule." This rule (I'm just making up the term now, thank you) means that, as a rule, the history of the dispute should be chronicled, with both sides described. Showing both sides eliminates a biased POV; this must include the arguments that both sides use to support their assertions. (The 2 terms are distinct.) As "support" documents, links to (1) opinion/advocacy pieces; and, (2) cites to the law or constitution should be used; and, (3) cites to compilations of court documents or related articles should be used too. The fact that one website is biased should not disqualify it. (Most or all websites have some bias, one way or another.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

OK, now that we've calmed down a little (I hope?), maybe we collectively can consider how to be unbiased and follow the "Gordon Rule," the example I used above is now boldface and like several paragraphs above. Instead of trying to tell you how the Gordon Rule operates, let me refer you to the example, which is, I admit, incomplete in that it doesn't have many links, but can give you some idea of how to get the job done. Do I follow my own rule? Is it a good example that others can follow? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:28, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Gordon's Rule"??? Man, you're so vain, you probably think this Terri Schiavo article is about you. Don't you. Don't you. (Hm, considering how many times you keep telling us of your involvment in the story, there might be something there.) Most or all websites have some bias. Chuckle. That's an interesting "well, everyone's doing it" argument to justify your propaganda site. sorry. No pass. FuelWagon 01:38, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm bad to the bone in my legal prowess, and I have gone where "no man has gone before..." (and would probably not want to go, he he...) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

And, just exactly how much more did you accomplish in this dispute? What brave legal accomplishments have you incurred? And, who exactly did better than me in court in trying to save Terri with regards to the cold, dry facts of success? (Remember: The standard is that someone has to equal or beat 43% of the sitting panel. I was defeated 4-3, meaning 3/7 is almost 43%. Of course, the opposing side "did better," in that they won, but I am not comparing myself to them.) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:55, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

What brave legal accomplishments have you incurred? None so brave as you, Don Quixote. You slay those windmills right to the ground. I am in awe. FuelWagon 02:57, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I don't see any windmills arguing with me. Do you? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:24, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

wacky edit

I don't know what happened on this edit here [8] but it has my name by it. I sure don't remember doing it. did something get messed up in the database or something? FuelWagon 00:07, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's entirely possible. I figured it was accidental — most people who deliberately remove things from Talk: pages are a bit more precise in their editing — so I went ahead and reverted it. - jredmond 00:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

another wacky edit

[9]

NCdave's version is described as the 'less POV version'. now THAT is whacky. FuelWagon 03:20, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

The vandal has been reported here FuelWagon 04:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You did not document your claim on that page as well as you did here; I clarified and affirmed some of your claim and overturned other of it here: [10] --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 04:44, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"Minimally conscious state"

Did the physicians nominated by the Schindlers use this phrase in their testimony? I think they just denied she was in PVS. Hammesfahr claimed she had some living tissue in the cortex and that by using some quack therapies he could "improve function". He didn't say how. Cheshire said she was in a minimally conscious state some time afterwards. Can the editors who want to associate MCS with Hammesfahr and Maxfield please cite them doing so? I'm editing the passage in question and hope that other editors will prevent its reversion until you do so cite them. Grace Note 03:53, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I believe that is a more accurate representation of the facts. FuelWagon 04:03, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This is his report of the exam he made. Note that he doesn't mention MCS. He actually claims that Schiavo is in far better shape than even that diagnosis would suggest. Grace Note 04:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)