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.
I was not - I was referring to the conversation I was conducting with another poster, the one you saw fit to jump into. Perhaps you should be concerned about your own reading comprehension.
I gave specific examples of Judge Greer's adjudication bias in Terri's case.
No, you did not. At best, you listed a series of decisions you happen to disagree with - at best, several of the things you listed are nothing more than tendentious BS. Let's start with the first:
For most of her subjection to life and death decisions Terri did not have a guardian ad litem although the law entitled her to one. This is analogous to a judge's decision that an incarcerated defendant has no need of the court-appointed lawyer provided for by the law.
Your analogy is garbage, for starters. The Constitution mandates counsel for those accused of crimes, whether the judge likes it or not. A guardian ad litem, on the other hand, is not mandated by law - one is, instead, appointed by the court at the court's discretion, when the court feels it is necessary. So, you've got one fact - some of the time she didn't have a guardian litem - and one piece of worthless spin in the form of a false analogy. Let's move on:
The Schindlers repeatedly and unsuccessfully requested that a GAL be appointed and demonstrated adequate need for one. This is analogous to a judge's refusal to grant a defendant's request for counsel.
The first part of your sentence is undoubtedly true - they requested a guardian at some point, which was unsuccessful. What follows - that they "demonstrated adequate need" - is hardly a fact on the other hand. At best, it is your opinion. You seem like a fairly literate person, but if you're confused on the concept, I'll pencil in some time to explain the difference between "fact" and "opinion", and why I'm not at all impressed by posters who declare their opinions to be fact.
You'd think I wouldn't have to actually tell you this, but when I said bring me facts and not weasel words, I didn't mean "present your opinions as fact", I meant bring me actual facts. So that one falls apart as well, although I note that you close with the same garbage analogy you put forth in your first point - apparently it has some attraction to you, despite its essential bankruptcy. Regardless, downward we go:
All motions to deprive Terri of a GAL came from her guardian, the very person whose ambitions the law seeks to check by means of an independent GAL. This is analogous to the President's requesting that the Judiciary dismiss the Legislature as an unnecessary party to safeguarding the people's interests.
Here we have a sterling example of my favorite waste of time - the completely worthless fact. Well, of course motions against the guardian ad litem came from her husband - he disagreed with the necessity of having one. If everyone agreed with everyone else on everything, we wouldn't need courts in the first place. Oooooo, how sinister - he had a different opinion. Well, that's why we have courts, to adjudicate competing claims and render a decision.
At least, on the other hand, you did strain yourself to compose a new, albeit equally worthless analogy, to close out your third "fact". It is absurd to compare the request to either not require or dismiss a guardian ad litem to the President attempting to "dismiss" Congress via the courts, not least of which because guardians ad litem exist at the pleasure of the court - they are dismissed and retained at the court's discretion. You may be a bit fuzzy on the workings of our constitutional government, so let me refresh your memory a bit - Congress does not exist at the discretion of the courts. Unlike a guardian ad litem, the courts cannot "dismiss" Congress. Not even if you ask them really nicely. So that analogy is ridiculous on its face also. But bravely we soldier on:
On a motion by Felos Judge Greer dismissed the initial GAL after he advised that aspects of Michael Schiavo's guardianship were potentially detrimental to the ward's interests. This is analogous to the mayor's dismissing the police for uncovering corruption in the city council.
Ah, yet another favorite of mine - the selective fact. Oh, and a little post hoc fallacy thrown in for good measure. Did you also know that Pearse unequivocally agreed with the diagnosis of PVS? The Schindlers vehemently disagree with that diagnosis - maybe they had Pearse removed as detrimental to their interests.
See? Wasn't that fun? With a little care in selecting your facts, you can spin any sort of conclusion you like. As for your analogy...well, I'm sure you can guess by now that this ain't gonna be pretty. This is not, of course, in any way analogous to the mayor dismissing the police for uncovering corruption. Unlike the police, the guardian ad litem was empowered for a limited time and required to produce his report for the court to consider. Once that's done, his job is done. The court can either retain him to consider more issues, or it can thank him for his work and send him on his way. Needless to say, this is not how police forces are retained, not by any mayor anywhere in this country, not even Marion Barry.
Now, shall I really continue with this, or have I wasted enough time on your "facts" already? Don't bring me this pile of crap and then presume to lecture me on the necessity of doing one's own research. You want me to acknowledge some facts? Then I suggest you get out there and find some that are worth my time, because this dog's breakfast you've brought me tonight is no such thing.