Replies

All parties did not reach an agreement - the judge made a ruling that was most favorable to the granddaughter that doesn't have a legal POA as opposed to the brother and sister that do.

When the extremist lynch mob on this board got started on Thursday based on a WND report that failed to note the Monday hearing results, some of us here urged caution, but no, Gaddy and the judge were declared Godless murderers and every sort of absurdity was charged. Of course as it turns out there was an agreement to have a 3 doctor panel review granny's case and make a recommendation as to her condition and prognosis, whereupon, as I understand it, the recommendation resulted in her being moved from the hospice to a hospital, presumably for a surgical procedure.

Further, according to reports, Gaddy and the other family members hugged (that being on Monday), after the signed agreement from all parties. Nor did WND report that in fact Gaddy had been hand feeding granny all this time. Nor were you interested in where these so called loving family members were for the ten years that Gaddy had been caring for granny.

So while all of this was going on as it should have been, the nutcases were out of the woodwork screaming for justice, and condemning those of us here who simply asked if WND had reported everything correctly.

I wrote: "My God! If this isn't a case that deserves a temporary reprieve until all is investigated then I don't know what the F@$K is." Your reply isn't a factual refutation but a simple, sweeping conclusion.

So apparently your legal conclusions about the need for a temporary reprieve were baseless as the judge was in fact doing his job, isn't that correct? And all of this without the need for all of the extremist rants.

I'd say a statement like "Apparently you don't know much of anything" would qualify as a cheap insult, a baseless charge and a one-sentence mindless bloviation

Given the whole story, it would appear that you knew little to nothing about what was going on here and simply ran off half cocked like so many of your bretheren, while lambasting and disparaging those of us who urged caution. I would say that one sentence mindless bloviation fits you perfectly in this case.

So are you saying the board moderators are engaged in "...cheap insults, idiotic rants, baseless charges, and mindless bloviating"?

Only if you're a board moderator, in which case then, yes. But the mods I have seen doing their jobs appear to be doing them quite well, so you may not be sufficiently qualified.

There is nothing fundamentalist about supporting life even if only half of the posted story were true facts. If you don't believe in God, fine, that is ultimately your choice.

That's what I love about the extremist whackos, if you ask questions first, you obviously don't support life or believe in God. In other words, to people like you, either you believe in life, or you believe in finding out the truth first. Apparently you can't be both. I don't wave my faith in other people's faces like some like some here enjoy doing.

As to my language, using symbols to substitute letters is perfectly legal on this board that I know of; I've seen swear words wearing no clothes get through but I don't do that.

If you can't get through a logical debate without the use of swear words, then I will try and overlook such shortcomings.

Using symbols is the equivalent of saying "fiddlesticks" or "fudge" for the "F word".

No, its simply a way of saying the "F" word and getting by the standards of the board. Let's not compound your mistakes with hypocrisy too.

Taking it out of the Godly realm, the question is, "Where is your heart?"

As this case proves, a good heart needs to be commingled with a good dose of common sense.

The bottom line here is that nothing that WND or Glenn Beck, or the lynch mob here did had the slightest impact on the resolution of the Mae Magouirk case. You simply gave a good laugh to the leftist boards, and made complete fools of yourselves.

"...according to reports."

Could you please source these other reports, I'll look at them and apologise if I was wrong. I will admit about being wrong about the judge's Monday order but I was not wrong about lack of POA which made all of Gaddy's and the hospice's actions wrong. If I and others are wrong about the living will, then please source a report. If I am wrong that she could not be determined to be vegetative in such a short time, then please source a report. If there is any source to show that the grandmothers brother and sister, who are very elderly themselves, purposely ignored their sister out of lack of caring, show me a source. If there is any report to indicate a financial standing of the grandmother, show me the source.

You did not urge caution, you came to conclusions that ignore the initial actions of Gaddy and the hospice and their legal representation. There would have been no agreement if Gaddy and the hospice were on strong legal ground. They were not. And to imply that the grandmother's brother and sister did not care because they were not the primary caretakers is not fair unless you can source a report/legal documents to say as such.

And for now on, I'll will refrain from using cloaked swear words because it gives masters of logic like yourselves (source please) an opening to state how "extremist whacko" said poster must be. It is valid to show caution, it is valid to point out conflicting reports (sources please) but it is not valid to ignore reasonably questionable actions in the legal realm and/or to presume that all legal proceedings are immune to questioning or that there are possibilities as in this case where ulterior motives/conflicts-of-interest may have some play. there was I high burden of proof that needed to be met before Gaddy took her actions and she did not have or meet those burdens.

Again please source your reports and I will zip it.