Replies

Cboldt,

You are very welcome.

general_re,

You wrote: "By my count, that is the fourth time on this very thread that someone has insisted to me that the guardian was "fired"."

If you are referring to any of my posts as the fourth instance, I fear for your counting or reading skills. I plainly stated that Terri's guardian ad litem was dismissed at the behest of George Felos. While I would not take exception to the term "fired," I only quoted it in an opening sentence by way of identifying the subject of your evident obsession with semantics.

You wrote: "And that insistence is invariably deployed in support of some variety of conspiracy theory, whereby the supposed "firing" is taken as "evidence" that the system was somehow illicitly manipulated, by Michael Schiavo, by Judge Greer, by some vast conspiracy that is now encompassing the county ME, and so forth and so on."

"Some variety of conspiracy theory?" Your comprehension deficit astounds me. I gave specific examples of Judge Greer's adjudication bias in Terri's case. This is neither theory nor conspiracy. Each instance is present in the record. You may not share my displeasure at how things were done but you can hardly dispute that they were done.

If Judge Greer's partiality, selectivity and extracanonical jurisprudence escape you, it cannot be for lack of data. Please review the record and tell me what does not match my sober list. Failing that, your retorts will perpetually lack substance.

You wrote: "If I am arguing semantics, sir, it is because words matter, and I refuse to sit back and allow otherwise well-meaning folks to manipulate the language into becoming something it is not."

While your professed linguistic fidelity heartens me, it is not reflected in your response. You inaccurately report me as saying that "the guardian was fired." First, I spoke of the guardian ad litem, not the guardian. Second, I correctly stated that he was dismissed, not fired.

Explain your strange perception of what I said as representing "some variety of conspiracy theory." I gave a straightforward albeit uncomplimentary account of Judge Greer's misrulings. You leave me guessing at how to reconcile your derailed recollection with the stated belief that "words matter." If you stumble over a mere few paragraphs of mine, what hope is there for you to grasp an epic miscarriage of justice spanning a decade?

The frail substance of your responses betrays your source of information about Terri's case as being soundbites from the popular media. These were largely distilled from sludge produced by the litigant with all the money. They hardly offer a solid platform from which to critique opinions reached by spending upward of ten-thousand hours looking at the available material. You should at least register as a subscriber to the Pinellas County digital court records library. If you did some homework, it would make discussing pertinent points with you more promising.

You wrote: "You want an "acknowledging of broad facts"? Then bring me facts, not attempts to weasel your way into an otherwise unsupported conclusion by exploiting the ambiguities of language."

I could appreciate the latent humor if it were not such an embarrassment to you. Had you actually read what I wrote, you would now be cognisant of at least a few facts. The Greer rulings I cited are a matter of record. I also just suggested how you can remedy the abundant gaps in your understanding.

Research, general_re. Don't expect others to do all the work for you. There would be little virtue in that. Besides, nobody can hand you original documents. If this is what you mean by "bring me facts," then you must continue displaying ignorance. It would be more productive for you to refute facts I already cited instead of hoping that anyone will buy your pretense that I did not present any, don't you think?

Now, beyond giving you credit for a cute string of words, I don't know what to do with the "weasel your way into an otherwise unsupported conclusion." For someone claiming to value authenticity you seem to have quite a penchant for sophistry. The conclusions forcing themselves upon anyone willing to look at the scope of this judicial travesty are far too unpleasant to entertain voluntarily, what to speak of acquiring them through weasling. Please try again, this time with feeling.