jackie hayes

QUOTE(Texsox @ Mar 23, 2005 -> 12:21 AM) I am not generalizing. Everyone who I have spoken to about this, who are in favor of her dying, do not have children. That's a fact, not a generalization. The point I am making from that fact, is having children changes some people's opinions about some things. It is an observation I made. ... And I've been thinking about unconditional love and what it means to me. If this was my wife, I would be by her side every day, talking to her. Not living with another woman having kids. But as you mentioned, everyone has an opinion. One final note regarding feeding tubes as life support. To arbitrarily say you wouldn't want this life support means if you were ever in a coma you would want it pulled. Her brain state is a much more valid reason for pushing for her speedy death, than a feeding tube. Every paraplegic or person in a coma, needs assistance receiving nourishment. I don't believe you are saying she should die because she requires a feeding tube. You are generalizing if you think that applies generally. I've spoken to people with kids who believe she should be allowed to pass, and that's fact too. As for staying with her, the question is whether she, Terri, is even there anymore. So much of her brain is simply gone, she's no longer capable of memory or thought, it's very difficult to say that she exists in any real sense. And noone, noone, is saying that she should die b/c she's on a feeding tube.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 01:34 PM) Exactly which disease were you referring to then? You didn't say DJ was uninteresting, you said his disease was uninteresting. I'm curious which one you were talking about if it wasn't his cancer. I meant he passed his uninterestingness (Uninteresting Disease) to Hawk. That's the only way the post makes any sense or is at all relevant, so I thought it was obvious. To be honest, I have no clue what diseases DJ has had, has now, or will have. I didn't know he had cancer, I may have heard about it, but just forgot.

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 05:49 AM) Yes. My mistake. Her maiden name is Schindler. What do you mean by reliigous "usuals'? There is no law that says her husband should have the final say. The law states that in the absence of a living will it is up to the courts to decide upon a guardian. It is that process that is being called into question. The court would not allow a lot of testimony & audio/video evidence that would have supported her choosing her right to life. That testimony & a/v evidence supported her religious practice as a Catholic. They ignored essentially all evidence pertaining to that aspect of her life. This is a very complex case because so much time has passed. He's legally her husband because he never divorced her but as Tex said he's fathered another woman's child & is living & sleeping with her. Is that not ground's for divorce? Are we as a society going to say it's ok to sleep around on people like Terri because she can't contest? Should that right pass down to her parents when she is unable? As always when studying a legal problem let's generalize it a bit. Suppose spouse A is caught cheating by spouse B & in the process B suffers a mental breakdown & is declared mentally incompetent by the courts with spouse A assigned as her guardian. Spouse A then decides to father children & live/sleep with his girlfriend. Does spouse B have any legal recourse to divorce spouse A? Should s/he? I would think most of us would say yes. That recourse is only going to come from her family. The courts should recognize this. The parents of spouse B should have the legal recourse to sue for divorce on behalf of their child. it goes w/out saying that the transfer of guardianship should be included in the process. If this recourse had been available to the Schindler's this case would have been over a long time ago. Michael would have been removed from the process as a result of the divorce. With respect to the Church the marriage would be annulled. In my opinion that's where the FL legislature errored in their efforts to save Terri. They should have passed a law facilitating the means for the Schindlers to sue Michael for Terri's divorce on the grounds of infidelity. They should have signed into law that when that occurs guardianship is transferred to the state until the divorce is settled. At which time it would then transfer to the party who sued for divorce on her behalf. Uh, no. Other people should not be able to request a divorce in your stead. I suppose they could then marry her off to someone they liked better, too? Whittemore denied the request to reinsert the feeding tube. Reuters link.

QUOTE(3E8 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 05:33 AM) Yeah, cancer is pretty boring. Yeah, that's exactly what I was referring to. That's just asinine. Obviously I wasn't referring to his cancer, but you felt like you could make some idiot accusation. I guess since DJ had testicular cancer, noone can say he's uninteresting? We should all baby him and talk about how impossibly wonderful and charming he is?

QUOTE(YASNY @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 04:59 AM) Contusion means Rowand is fine and don't worry about it. Phew. What a relief. I mean, imagine if Crash had a bruise!

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 01:39 AM) Or his yearly (usually twice, at least a couple times in the last two years) anti-Moneyball/anti-Beane rant. Rooney and Farmer have even more. About how James' books are only good for evening table legs. And boy, does that joke never get old. Hawk has really gone downhill lately, imo. I'm scared DJ spread whatever uninteresting disease he had.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:44 AM) Contusion=bruise QUOTE(RockRaines @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:48 AM) im not too worried about a-rows bruise QUOTE(Cerbaho-WG @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:54 AM) Contusion = deep bone bruise... QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 01:07 AM) He has a bruise on his shoulder in other words... QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 01:29 AM) Contussion is basically a bruise... QUOTE(BigNDfan80 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 04:21 AM) A contusion is a fancy word for bruise... I'm SO confused. What's "contusion" mean, again?

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 02:35 AM) If I were representing the Schiavo's that would be my case. Not that her religious rights were violated but rather her religious practice was ignored in determining her will of life. The appeal would be based on testimony that evidence pertaining to her religious practice was not admitted by the court in defense of her right to life. This includes testimony of church members that she expressed a right to live as well as pro-life rallies her & her family took part in. It's common knowledge that those who participate in pro-life rallies do not support right-to-die as a living will choice. You mean the Schindlers, right? Sorry, I do not accept religious 'usuals' as expressed beliefs. I've known too many Catholics who are willing to openly defy JPII on matters of orthodoxy to believe that religious beliefs are true personal beliefs. Her husband should have the final say. If you don't like the law, fine, change it. But until then, this is a pure travesty. Who is harmed by keeping her (or "her") alive? She is, or her memory is, if she wanted it otherwise. And Tex -- "Most people would at least give a stray dog a bowl of water" -- although I support euthanasia, it's not an option here. (Welcome back from the far right, btw.)

QUOTE(JUGGERNAUT @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 12:24 AM) I mentioned the possibility of suffering & found this: A leading nuerologist said the timing of her death will depend on how well she was hydrated before the feeding stopped & whether her doctors give her painkillers in intravenous fluids to prevent possible suffering. The nuerologist did say that even persons in persistent vegetive states can experience pain during starvation. Where did you find it? First reason to question it is that they can't even spell neurologist. In general: So where are all the laws from Congress requiring that we 'err on the side of life' -- not business, or politics? And since there's so much evidence that this woman is recoverable, can someone tell me why the state court is so corrupt that it appointed physicians that all came to the conclusion that the woman is not? Whether you like the law or not, the court did its job, the correct decision was made, and this should be over, except that some parasites in Congress wanted to make a point without taking any real position. This is one of the most disgusting episodes in American politics in decades.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 06:14 AM) Bulls***, berkman>ordonez and gets less money per year on average. That's b/c Ordonez is overpaid, not b/c Berkman is underpaid. Berkman's also better than Beltran, so the Astros can consider themselves double-lucky. In my dream world, the Astros bailed and let the Sox get him, for at least one season (Ellis Burksish). Alas.

What's the risk? Minor league deal + the last pitching coach to see him right. Not that he'll do anything, but I'd try it too.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 07:14 AM) unless something drastic is done Which is the whole question, right? More half-ass steps like MLB has taken thus far, or real, painful punishment (hell, any tangible punishment would count as drastic, here, imo). The players and management basically said nuts to you, so it's Congress's turn. And to be honest, I'm not any more certain of their resolve. (Wait, they appointed a Task Force, who'll come up with Recommendations. With Schilling, who also ended up in the nuts to you camp. Significant stuff there.) All the big questioners, prove your resolve. Get something done.

QUOTE(WHarris1 @ Mar 19, 2005 -> 04:12 AM) OLine chemistry is big for sure. Which is why it's good to go into camp with 5 set starters. Tait-Brown-Kreutz-Garza-Miller Fwiw, the Bears are saying that Metcalf is the starter going into camp, w/ Garza backing up both guard spots.

He's young too, iirc. Just a one year deal, though, so I don't think it would affect their draft plans much.

QUOTE(danman31 @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 03:15 AM) If you're going to say soda is no longer legit without soda fountains, how in the hell to you justify 'pop'? What about it makes it pop? Being from Illinois, I say it's pop simply by the beauty of the democratic process. Note the study's "conclusion" -- "People who say "Pop" are much, much cooler." Science says snaaaap.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 04:18 AM) True enough. There are retrospective studies about the long term effects but they are mostly anecdotal and don't stand up to research standard rigors. Unfortunately as the people who used them in the US (the boom time was the 70's-early 90's) get older we will be able to collect more data. I don't know about how those studies were done, but I wonder how much of that is because "research standard" in medicine is such an incredibly high standard. Studies that were 'improperly performed' in medicine would in many other fields be considered lead-pipe-cinch convincing.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 04:03 AM) I have seen that study. The thing is it was a well done study however it measured only the behavioral effects of a short 2 week cycle. It addresses neither the physical or long term effects of anabolic steriods. I'm sure it made it by the IRB because it was short term with no invasive measures required to examine the physical effects. Let's get one thing straight, I am dead set against steriod use. We just don't have hard sceintific evidence to convince everyone of this. Well...no clinical trials on the long-term effects. But TRU was also arguing that there are no short term effects. And there is some evidence on the long-term effects, even if it isn't from clinical trials. (Historical + survey studies exist, I'd guess, which can still be scientifically done. You may know this literature better than I would.) Just saying, even if the evidence isn't as clean and perfect as we'd like, doesn't mean it can be dismissed.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 03:25 AM) The problem is that there are no real clinical studies showing the effects of steriods on humans. No researcher can ethically or legally give someone a substance to see if it hurts them. All the research has been done on animals. We can infer what hapeened to the animals may happen in humans and we are probably right. This however just gives more ammunition to the opposing opinion. Not completely true. Just looking for some stuff (some google, yes, but also searching NIH), I found one study. It seems like there have been some controlled studies done. And probably some using other methods, I'd have to read them more closely to be sure how they did the analysis. I'm not hoping to change TRU's mind, I know that won't happen. But if there's something wrong with these studies, he should point that out. Just saying that nothing can possibly be learned in medicine without doing it to yourself, that's something that I don't buy for a second.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 03:17 AM) Nah im not trying to say all doctors are wrong what im saying is they are talking bout straight ABUSE of steroids which is making it seem like its poison, but thats not the case.. But you're saying that all medical studies about steroids are utterly useless. So why aren't all medical studies utterly useless, since they use similar methods? Btw, since no reputable doctor would prescribe steroids for a healthy athlete, technically ANY such use constitutes abuse.

QUOTE(T R U @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 03:09 AM) haha, its not crap.. its the truth All you know is what you have been told.. and thats what life isnt like If you have never used them you dont know what your talking about, all your doing is recycling the same old s*** from what you have HEARD about them.. so please, spare me your repetative bulls*** You have a right to your opinion, but do you really expect me to believe you when you say that all doctors and medical evidence are total crap? Maybe the mumps are great too, I've never had 'em, after all.

QUOTE(LosMediasBlancas @ Mar 17, 2005 -> 09:27 PM) Cola is a dark soft drink. Soda is a dark soft drink. "Pop" includes all, dark and clear drinks. I don't think of 7-Up and Sprite as Soda. That's per-verse! But then how do you justify 'soda water'? 'Soda' should be restricted to that by(long)gone era when they actually had soda fountains and sock hops and danced the twist, or maybe the Charleston, who knows anymore. I can respect 'soda pop', or better, 'sodie pop'. But that's where I draw the line.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:53 AM) It was a good try though!!!! I tried to make a come back the same way but I couldn't get it to work that well so I gave up. Thanks, well, live and learn.Ya jerk.

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:45 AM) I agree but as I said earlier he makes them a ton of money so they keep him in. As Steff pointed out he doesn't negotiate the contrats but he does things such as refusing to go for the salary cap, keep in the arbitration process which artificailly increases their pay when he negotiates the CBA. Just from my dealings in the different professional sports the players in the MLB follow him more than any other sport follows what their respective leaders say. You may very well be correct but as Steff said we can agree to disagree Yeah, absolutely, we're mostly just disagreeing on semantics, anyway. Tried the subliminal mssg, but I don't know how to make it as small as I want!

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:29 AM) Regardless of who is leading the lemurs, I agree with you that the union is a little at fault then the owners, although the owners didn't try real hard in these negotiations. Maybe the fans too? It's a real question, how much are fans willing to give up to see the game clean? And if it's so important to us, why haven't attendance and tv subscriptions fallen?

QUOTE(ptatc @ Mar 18, 2005 -> 02:29 AM) It's true they vote him in, however I think he dictates the policy and they follow it. Because of the money he makes for them the don't attempt to vote him out. Okay, but then it's the players making the real choice every time they vote him back in. They value money over better policy. Not saying it wouldn't be a common choice in any circle, but it's not like he's brainwashing them.