[TacticalFlashlight]

It looks obvious however, you came not of your own volition but as someone brought in to help out a friend. Am I right?

No, I am afraid you are mistaken. I do not know pageonetoo, if that is the "friend" to whom you are referring. I have been quietly reading these threads for nearly a year now, and was spurred to action by the rudeness and hostility with which a well-meaning poster was treated.

If you read the history through our threads past you would find a huge volume of facts and evidence to balance the raw propaganda put out by the left and their allies in the media, those who hearken to the dark side.

As I said, I have been reading these threads for some time, and also a great deal of information at various other sites around the Net, both from the left and from the right. I have seen facts, distortions, wishful thinking, and outright lies repeated again and again. I have the background information necessary to discuss these matters. Are you willing to do so with me, without name-calling and attacks?

[8mmMauser]

If you have read both sides and still find it equivocal and if you still find the need to defend the dark side, I commend to you these passages from Proverbs. They describe those who come here to disrupt.

Proverbs definition: Fools (and Trolls)

You have not come on to these threads as anyone who wants to discuss. Your tone is set in an all too familiar pattern we have seen many times. It is a waste for whomever you represent because it will show you for what you are and will bump our thread for more to see. I say this because we have discussed ad nausium and it is a counter between facts and evidence and personal knowledge on one side and attempts to disrupt with tired and disproven mantras all in the pseudo-name of "discussion." We have heard it all and I will not be drawn into your logic trap. Others may wish to take you on.

If you have signed on just to disrupt, then you will be unmasked. If you are one of good will, I hope to see it real soon.

[supercat]

As I said, I have been reading these threads for some time, and also a great deal of information at various other sites around the Net, both from the left and from the right. I have seen facts, distortions, wishful thinking, and outright lies repeated again and again. I have the background information necessary to discuss these matters. Are you willing to do so with me, without name-calling and attacks?

As with any unfiltered source of information, there is bound to be some incorrect information, some of it posted by well-meaning but misinformed people. Nonetheless, there are enough facts that are, so far as I can tell, beyond dispute that there is very little room if any for well-informed people to believe that the actions of Michael Schiavo, George Felos, and Judge George Greer were proper.

Tell me with which of the following you disagree:

1. Michael Schiavo changes his story so many times about so many things that there is no reason to regard anything he says as having any credibility.
2. Michael's lawyer George Felos wrote a book in which he claimed to be able to read others' desires; he must thus be either a psychic, a narcissicist, or a liar.
3. No reasonable judge could find on the basis of the testimony of Scott Schiavo that Terri had expressed a desire to be fatally dehydrated, and that such expression was made with the intention of such dehydration actually being carried out.
4. It's doubtful that a reasonable judge could have found Joan Schiavo's claim of being Terri's "best friend" credible, given that Joan had never seen Terri since she had the feeding tube nor talked to anyone about Terri's supposed "wishes" until seven years after Terri's "collapse". If Joan's claim of being "best friend" was false, nothing she says is credible.
5. The only plausible way Joan Schiavo's claim to be Terri's "best friend" would not be completely inconsistent with her behavior would be if she did not think Terri had any particularly desire not to live if incapacitated. If that's the case, however, then Joan could not meaningfully testify to Terri's having such a desire.
6. A proper diagnosis of PVS takes hours or days of examination of a patient by a doctor or an assistant observer operating under specific orders from the doctor.
7. None of the doctors who testified that Terri was PVS had done what was necessary to make such a diagnosis.

I could go on, but there really doesn't seem to be much room to argue that the actions of Michael et al. were proper unless the above points can be refuted.