I did not accuse you of calling anyone a murderer and told you that I respect folks who work for a cause. Nor did I accuse you of being part of a circus. But those things happened nontheless. Please see my other response earlier to see a few of the examples.
I did not say that you had accused me. I simply clarified that there were those of us who participated in this effort that did so in a respectful, calm manner. Contrary to how we have been portrayed. .
And such blind "run with the first report" adherance to rush to judgment is intellectually offensive to me.
LOL, see that is what I mean. I don’t think I or the other freepers did “blindly” “rush” anywhere or into anything. You, on the other hand do. .
First, you asked me, I didn't ask you. I respected an earlier post from you telling me that I irritated you, but I refrained from responding. I left it at that. You asked me later to give a complete explanation and now you can say this?
Yes, I can say this. It is the conclusion I came to after reading your posting history on this subject. Not just to me and not just on this thread. I took that effort upon myself because of your insistence that all you have done is calmly cautioned and advised prudence and that your effort was resulting in your being misunderstood.
And this has nothing to do with a woman's life.
Again, it has everything to do with a woman’s life, the fact that you will not or cannot affirm that is a fundamental divergence in our understanding of this matter and the significance of the Freeper involvement.
It has everything to do with a little rational and intelligent behavior.
There. We or I , whichever you prefer, are not rational and are behaving in a less than intelligent manner. Are we not to respond to that as an insult?
There is nothing all of these threads accomplished other than to churn up a lot of animosity among Freepers.
Well, it seems that those who do not wish to be involved in these efforts have made a wise choice to boycott these threads. I have to wonder, once it was apparent that this was an action oriented thread why you persisted. That is well within your Jim Robinson given rights as a Freeper. However, you own a part of that animosity generating activity.
You don’t like dittoing. Well you certainly are not being dittoed on these threads.
As I have asked before, What would you have done if Ken had told you the truth about the Monday hearing and the fact that several doctors were then examining her, and that her disposition would be determined by them?
I would have said, it’s Wednesday, what the heck are they taking so long with?
What would you have done if you knew that the agreement was quite detailed with respect to the nourishment requirements for Mae and that the agreement was written by Ken's attorney?
I would have said, that’s great that you got that in there, Ken, are they following it, is it more than jello and ice chips? (I know, we could probably scrap all day on this point about the jello and ice chips,(but we wont) that will never be nourishment to me for a lady in that situation.)
You make the assumption like so many here that if we question something, we are pro-death, or don't care about life. Self righteousness does not always lead to good decision making.
And here is another quote from you on self-righteousness, “The self righteous cannot tolerate another view. They must resort to insults rather than face the possibility of having drawn erroneous conclusions.”( Illness splits woman's kin (this is about Mae Magouirk) Posted by MACVSOG68 to TigersEye On News/Activism 04/13/2005 11:29:42 AM EDT · 89 of 95)
This actually is a good stopping point. Did you for once consider that your position could be characterized as ‘self-righteous’?
While you're busy condemning me and others, think about that.
If you would like some sample posts, I would be happy to oblige.
LOL, see that is what I mean. I don’t think I or the other freepers did “blindly” “rush” anywhere or into anything. You, on the other hand do.
Again, would be pleased to provide sample posts.
And this has nothing to do with a woman's life.
Again, it has everything to do with a woman’s life, the fact that you will not or cannot affirm that is a fundamental divergence in our understanding of this matter and the significance of the Freeper involvement.
Had you used the entire quote, I think your response would have had to be quite different.
I have to wonder, once it was apparent that this was an action oriented thread why you persisted.
If you will look back, you will see that after your post to me telling me that I was irritating all you folks, I let it go and went on to other threads. You posted me and requested explanations of my POV. I did not post to you. So in response, I received a number of other posts, to which I responded. Is that unacceptable on your action threads?
I would have said, it’s Wednesday, what the heck are they taking so long with?
And would you then have gone to the judge requesting an emergency hearing, feeling that the doctors were not following the court order, or would you have done like Ken did, prepare a press release leaving out most relevant information, but leaving in just enough to get the activists all cranked up?
I would have said, that’s great that you got that in there, Ken, are they following it, is it more than jello and ice chips? (I know, we could probably scrap all day on this point about the jello and ice chips,(but we wont) that will never be nourishment to me for a lady in that situation.)
So if you were that concerned about Mae's lack of nourishment and you were Ken, would you not then have requested an emergency hearing to file a contempt motion rather than spend your time writing press releases and going on a whirlwind talk show circuit? Seems strange that Ken's concerns over all of these things have failed to lead him to the one and only province that could have brought resolution to his concerns, Judge Boyd's courtroom!
And while you ignored most of my post 2259 to you including my apologies to anyone whom I have offended and proffering my appreciation to the many who are actively working for reforms, I understand. I suppose it's best to paint the other side as completely evil, not just partially so.
This actually is a good stopping point. Did you for once consider that your position could be characterized as ‘self-righteous’?
I agree, it is a good stopping point, and I hope you remember that quote on the self righteous. Because it is those who recoil at the reasonable questions of others because they know they are on a holy crusade who are the true self righteous.
BREAKING DEVELOPMENT
Tomorrow morning, Attorney Jack Kirby of LaGrange, Ga., will file a motion before Judge Boyd, on behalf of A. B. McLeod, which will ask the Judge to order Beth Gaddy to allow her Grandmother's brother and sister (A. B. McLeod, Lonnie Ruth Mullinax) visitation rights at UAB Hospital. Stay tuned.
Does that mean that this morning some decision should've been reached? I haven't seen any updates regarding this motion Mae's brother filed, maybe it's been settled, maybe it's still ongoing. Does anyone know the staus of this?