Posted on 06/22/2005 3:35:51 AM PDT by franksolich
Is Merh dumb as a rock (I don't think so -- maybe a stone) or was she nervous this evening when she said (on Malloy's thread) that all growths in the pancreas are cancerous, but you have to wait until they are out to find out if they are benign or malignant?
NONE of them know. I am convinced of that, now; none who have been sent in to bat, anyway. Merh keeps asking what difference does it make if it wasn't cancer in Seattle, but was in Md. If he had it in Md, he must have had it before, right? They didn't inject him with it. Well, maybe that tumor on the bile duct was precancerous, and in the 3 months it took for surgery, it turned. When was the ERCP? If you go back, you will find a post where the doc in Washington, says that if there is something in the pancreas it is less than 1 cm (2.5 cm's to an inch), because the ct scan will pick up anything larger, ie, the scan didn't find anything. (on Andy's post discussing the 4 different possibilities) He notes the doc is going to look at the pancreas in finer detail -- ERCP???? An ERCP should have told the tale. Since if he had ANYTHING in his pancreas at that time, it was very small, if what they took out was from his pancreas (I believe Bettyellen was always right and it was an encapsulated tumor on the bile duct) was golf ball sized, then the delay jeopardized his life, imo. His friends, if they were the ones to convince him to go to JH and it appears they were, and by so doing, delayed surgery, have it on THEIR conscience. Maybe that is why they are fighting so hard for the truth to stay closeted; they can't deal with the guilt which could come from it. Merh sounds almost desperate to me as she asks again and again -- he had to have it before Jh, then, right? right? right?
The tragic irony tonight is that for vindication, one side has to be hoping for a post op biopsy of virulent cancer, and one has to be hoping for no cancer -- and the friends can't be on the cancer free side, or they will, at the very least, be eating much humble pie, or hoping for a cake with a file in it.
Let's just discuss that for a moment. If the original diagnosis was not pancreatic cancer, which was the battle cry, but the final biopsy showed there was pancreatic cancer, would it matter, legally, technically? Yes, it would. The legal question is -- what was the diagnosis at the time of the fundraising, not after. Practically, would it matter? That is a very tough question involving lots of variables from what is the probative/evidential value of a post fundraising diagnosis in a court room, (ie would it be allowed in at all) to who is bringing the charges, what level, what charges, what political persuasion, what risks, what benefits.
Without wishing to get into a battle of the political parties, allow me the license to give a comparison. Did it matter technically IF Clinton lied in a deposition in a non-suited civil case (non-suited because there was no cognizable cause of action)? Yes. Did it matter practically? No, there had never been a perjury charge brought for a deposition in a case which failed to state a cognizable cause of action that researchers could find (from my reading), BUT it mattered to those who were in the political arena, who had the power to try a case outside of a courtroom. Sometimes things which would never survive in the practical world of litigation decision making, get lifted out of that practical world for other reasons.
Transparency from the BEGINNING would have saved everyone a great deal of time, trouble, and anxiety. To call this mess a fiasco is an understatement. We have seen a firestorm which has just gotten bigger and hotter as time has gone by. It's sad, really, because so much of it could have been preventd, except for the hubris of a few.
Also, the letter from the woman from Chicago, way above, is well worth the read; the anguish of those truly in need.
But anyway, from the Misty site:
Transparency from the BEGINNING would have saved everyone a great deal of time, trouble, and anxiety. To call this mess a fiasco is an understatement. We have seen a firestorm which has just gotten bigger and hotter as time has gone by. It's sad, really, because so much of it could have been prevented, except for the hubris of a few.
Well, whether this "document" today--or rather, promised today, although it hasn't been seen yet--is fake or real, it STILL does not answer any one of the three questions.
So, when it comes, when it comes, I suppose we should all look at it for amusement and entertainment, whether fake or real, but probably everyone will agree that no, this answers none of those three really simple, really easy-to-answer, questions.
It is odd you mentioned the imperial red round one; I doubt even he himself can "account" for the funds, the receipts and expenditures.
After all, the imperial red round one is a guy who ran a prospering Subway sandwich shop into the ground, bled Bev Harris and CaseOhio of money, has forgotten to cash a $4,000 paycheck, stuffs gold coins into his mattress, and only God knows what he did with a $70,000 inheritance received just a couple of years ago.
I really doubt the imperial red round one can account for the money, its income and outgo.
For the sake of argument, let's assume that Andy can show a post-op biopsy that is cancerous.
Though irrelevant to the lack of evidence prior to fundraising began, this point would become hard to make in the public's eye. We can understand that it is fraud to claim you have cancer when you know no such thing. Even if you later turn out to indeed have it. It's still fraud.
But to the common person, especially on the left, this is a distinction difficult to make.
Which brings us to question 2. I think this is stronger right now, regardless. Even if we have iron-clad pre-fundraising biopsy results showing cancer, the fact that a fake surgery date was used to whip up a fundraising frenzy is clearly fraudulent.
SD
I remember reading that post (as well as the replies), what seems like ages ago, when I was searching out websites where the "Andy is dying!" messages were posted. I didn't look at the date it was posted, so didn't realize it was from Feb.
True. But it will distract a certain amount of the "progressive" community. Of course, we see some of the more daring questioners (greyowl) are satisfied with pictures of a man in a hospital gown and a PDF file with a doctor's business card affixed. So the standards for "truthseeking" are amazing low.
SD
That lady says it all, madam; that is a gut-wrenching, and oh-so-true letter.
Well, apart from the race-baiting. It's certainly true that the "progresives" are inordinately fat, happy white kids. But I doubt that black newborns end up in dumpsters cause the mothers can't afford delivery or can't afford to feed them.
But this letter certainly presents this lady's bona fides as a member of the left.
SD
Tha standards for "truthseekers" at Malloy are on par with a 4 year-old asking, "Daddy, is Santa Claus real?" and Johnny's dad showing him a picture of a shopping mall Santa Claus is enough evidence to prove his existance.
Your "very rich AND you use dial-up"??
<<old-fashioned, I guess.
Well, no report yet, from dirty ben.
The new puppy must have house-broke on it.
Once the welfare mod over at Malloy's site throws the "switch" you should tell them that once you get the WA SoS or the AG's office on the line, you just can't get rid of 'em! They just want to talk and talk they're so interested in this :)
Rumor has it that Mike Malloy's wife moderates the discussions over there, so as to keep expenses down--nothing wrong with that, of course--and recently had an infant--nothing wrong with that, of course--and so she's probably tired of sitting in front of the computer.
Yes, I do remember reading that, now that you mention it.
Yeah, and I guess if I was the mother of an infant, I wouldn't want to be spending any time on the computer--especially not when dirty ben's around--and so probably nothing's going to happen on Malloy today.
Anybody have any suggestions of other places we can go?--if so, e-mail me.
I can't believe no one over there called her on it, regardless on what side of the issue they fall. If somebody did that on FR, there would be 50 freepers "correcting" them.
AH! You have hit on the difference between FR and every other forum on the net!
Honesty and integrity are not just suggested here, they are a requirement! 
And we police our own!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.