http://www.11alive.com/rss/article.aspx?storyid=61478
A few exerpts:
Judge Boyd called Mullinax's charges completely false and said all relatives agreed to let three doctors decide what was next for Magouirk. He said that everyone was happy with the compromise.
“They were hugging necks, and, as far as I knew, the family was fine,” the judge said.
Bloggers from the Schiavo case heated up the Internet and swamped the judge's phones and computer with what he said are wildly false charges.
“I've even been accused several times of murder and I've had, I would say, close to a hundred e-mails,” Boyd said.
The CEO of the West Georgia Health System told 11Alive News, "No patient at our hospice is denied food or water."
Apologies are not necessary at all. I would never flame anyone who had not flamed me first. I prefer analytical debate over the DU fashion of one line insults. So, hopefully we can move on from that. In any case, the story here does simply point out that the situation was always under control, and that there may be more than one side to the story. As for Gaddy, she may well be a golddigger, but I would still like to know why the others have remained out of the picture for 10 years, no aspersions being cast.
You did not urge caution, you came to conclusions that ignore the initial actions of Gaddy and the hospice and their legal representation.
From the first moment I read the initial WND report, I urged caution and posed a number of questions. I made no value judgements concerning Gaddy, the judge or anyone else, rather I did make judgements about the rush to judgement before all the facts were on the table. I questioned both the motives of WND which is clearly agenda driven, and Glenn Beck who was not the slightest bit interested in anything other than sensationalism. The initial story seemed so one sided, that most reasonable people might pursue more of it.
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.
How about just an agreement not to be the first to hurl insults? As for the source that I am a master of logic, would the whole truth of the Mae Magouirk story suffice?
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
Not completely sure I follow that, but there is absolutely nothing wrong with questioning anything such as the Mae Magouirk case, but it is the premature conclusions resulting in threats and charges of murderer, etc cast about like so much pollen in the Spring air that's the problem. And worse, are the folks who insult, flame, and otherwise castigate folks who are not ready to join the lynch mob. In the end, had it turned out to be what folks had concluded on Thursday, you would have had another Freeper in me joining in. But in any case, I am happy that the "system" was able to work out this issue to everyone's satisfaction here.
Ms. Geddy lost it the second she walked into the court to ask for such a thing. The judge lost it when he granted it, and his decision to hold another hearing on Monday simply does not exempt him from the harshest of criticism for his intial ill-considered action.
No wonder the judge got criticized in his e-mails.
And hey, what's this nonsense of this judge thinking 100 e-mails is a large number? Is he some kind of part time monk/part time judge?
I know this is belated but, as the kids say, "It' all cool!"