Considering that your very first post to me was to suggest that I was engaging in an obfuscatory discussion of irrelevancies, I really think that you abandoned any high ground on that score some time ago. If you do not care for my manner here, I suggest you begin by tending to your own house.
I wish though that you would not find it necessary to presume upon my motives.
See, I would find that much more worthwhile if you hadn't started out - again, in your very first post - by questioning my motives. You put motives on the table. If you do not wish to discuss your motives, perhaps you should forego an investigation of mine. You haven't exactly been sitting on your hands here - we've had us a fine little pas de deux, you and I, which is why the naif thing just really isn't working right now.
As for history, we could probably engage in another long and likely fruitless discussion. What survives is usually the version sanctioned by the dominant side. Applied to the judicial travesty known as Terri's case, it is possible that the final tale will wind up being close to the one you seem to favor.
Errr, well, I wasn't planning in insisting that you stick around so that we can come to a meeting of the minds, but I can't resist pointing out that there doesn't seem to be much room for the truth in our new Zinn-esque paradigm of competing narratives. Nevertheless, the truth is there somewhere, and with me it begins by separating legal correctness from moral correctness - shame you didn't back all the way up to see that.
general_re,
I believe that your points are well taken. I apologize for any rush to judgment on my part. I do believe that a dialogue predicated upon "separating legal correctness from moral correctness" is worthwhile. I suggest that neither one of us categorically reject an unpleasant opinion by the other but focus instead on the scope of supporting material. Deal?
Warm regards,
TS