'tis the nature of the forum, and is a human weakness to be imprecise in expression, to jump to conclusions, and sometime, to be snippy about it.
I think you'll agree that our exchanges have been civil, and that the thrust of them has been to illuminate the questions and issues, the gaps in the reports, if you will.
And I've been forthright in letting readers know my bias (as if it isn't clear!), while speculating that even if the first story is true, and even if Mae is starved/dehydrated to death, the law will find no inexcusable wrong.
Absolutely. And I would say that even if no laws were broken, that there remains both here and in the Schiavo case, ethical issues that states must address.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/1379016/posts <-- Posts 1436+