Texsox

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:45 PM) Right, exactly, I "may be" a cold hearted ass who doesn't care if his child dies. That's entirely fair. I'm saying I've spoken to parents -- also in the real world -- who believe that her parents have to accept that their daughter is gone. So the unanimity you're claiming is wrong. Or they must be heartless bastards, right? After all, any parent who loves their kid must ignore all respectable medical opinion because a miracle might happen. Or...they could say, these doctors have more expertise than me, and they all say there's no hope -- none. And as much as I loved my child while alive, she's gone now, and I am going to have to come to grips with that. Nah, they've got to be psychopaths. That's a much better explanation. Would you please read my posts. I have spent time carefully reading yours, you are misstating my position and not addressing the #1 objection to this situation. The person who is claiming to be her spouse has moved on with his life, is living with another woman and has two kids. All the people that * I* (myself, me, and no one else) have spoken with, about a dozen, who advocate death, have no children. I am not implying anything else. Where did I claim any unanimous that all people?? You are misrepresenting my words. If you believe that personal experiences do not have anything to your views, that's you, I believe most people are shaped by their experiences and education. If you believe that experiences, education have nothing to do with your opinions fine. What are your opinions based on? My objection and please read carefully, is that the one person who has the authority right now to have her die is the man who is now living with someone else. No Doctor is recommending her to die. Many Doctors are claiming she has no hope of recovery and I accept that. But no Doctor who is caring for her, is recommending she be killed. The one person who has her life or death in his hands is her legal husband. I do not believe he is in the best position to make that decision.

I do not believe I ever said only the childless, I mentioned the people here who posted the most times to allow her to die, are all childless. I also pointed out that every person I spoke with in the real world that was pro-death, was also childless. So my conclusion is being a parent may alter ones opinions. IMHO seeing your baby for the first time, holding them in a quiet house late at night, changing diapers, teaching them to walk, ride a bike, staying up late when they are dating, sending them off to college, walking your daughter down a wedding aisle, all are included in some people's opinions. If you believe that wouldn't effect your judgement, who am I to disagree with how you believe you will feel. You may be able to give life to someone, then turn over their life or death to another person sho has "moved on with his life" and is only staying involved to see that she dies. I also am not arguing that she should not be allowed to die. In fact, if she had a living will and expressed a desire to not live in this state (absent of brain activity), I would not only support her right to die, but be petitioning congress (again) that these humans should be allowed to choose their manner of death. No one would choose dehydration. She desires, at the minimum, the same painless, speedy death we would give a mass murderer. So her dying is not something I object to. What I do object to is the person who is claiming as her spouse he should be allowed to decide. The courts aren't saying she should die. Doctors aren't saying she should die. The only person who is petitioning for her to die, is living with another woman and his children. Her Doctors and Nurses have been on countless shows saying she should live.

QUOTE(whitesoxmurph @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 07:13 PM) I go to Vegas 3-4 times a year (I live in LA) and I usually stay at either Mandalay or The Flamingo (I like the Bugsy old time gangster feel). I think Texsox is right about setting limits, often though this is related to the amount of booze you are pounding @ the table as well. I set a 4 hour limit and a loss and win limit. I always figure out how much money I have to gamble with and divide it by the number of days I'm going to be there and divide that by two for two sessions a day. I then have my daily amount I can lose. If I go up the amount of my total for the whole trip, I'll walk away from that session, unless I'm playing craps (I'll wait for the shooter to crap out). One thing I discovered the first time I did this was they have shows in Vegas! Who would have thought Booze and gambling is an obvious concern. Why do you think the drinks are so quick to arrive? I like your idea of two sessions per day. That makes a lot of sense. I'm thinking of a serious morning/mid day session, then an evening session at much lower stakes and drinking. As much as I love the 24/7 atmosphere, I just never feel good about gin and tonics at 10:00 am.

E-Lo is Kenny's shining moment so far. Talk about buying low and selling high.

QUOTE(TheDybber @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 06:44 PM) What this case should do...is make every single one of us go out, seek a lawyer, and write up a living will. Especially if you don't want to live like this. If the government wants to keep her alive, then they should take over her care. I think her husband has done enough and maybe it's just too much for him to handle. As for the wife/children argument, I have been married (and soon will be again) and I couldn't see my wife in a vegetative state for 15 years...that's too much suffering for anyone. I don't have kids, but I would think that keeping a child alive is pretty selfish. The problem is she can't make the decision for herself anymore and she's not going to get better. Let her go. Either way it's a slippery slope. Who is suffering? Terri? That's what makes this so interesting. One side believes she has no feeling, no brain activity, and is basically already dead and incapable of suffering, so she should die. I do not believe most people would not want their ex-spouse making this decision, perhaps you would. I appreciate everyone's opinion. This is a matter of choice and I would passionately argue for Terri's right to die, if she had a written document or something more than her ex-spouses word. Her parents have known her all her life. Maybe they too know her. I know how much I love my family. If there was the smallest of hope, I would cling to it, embrace it, and do everything in my power to try and make that happen. I could not imagine turning my back and starting a new family. I watched my parents bury my brother. Parents watching their children die is not the circle of life. Parents give children live, to toss aside their feelings in all this is perverse. I bring my biases, my faith, my family, all my life experiences to this opinion. I will not deny that. People who can set aside themselves, and their experiences, and make a computer like decision have a different make up than me. My wife and I have similar living wills and they do not have explicit verbiage about feeding tubes. It does have verbiage for brain activity and the use of a ventilator.

QUOTE(jackie hayes @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 07:07 PM) 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. As I stated, I believe that being a parent changes a person's thinking. So I accept that I bring that bias to my opinion. Are you stating that being a parent would not effect your thinking? Would you then also argue that being religious would not effect your opinion? The "husband" wants to determine her fate. He wants to claim spousal rights, while living with someone else. Steff mentioned it was unconditional love, I disagree. IMHO unconditional love would have me at my wife's bed side, not starting a new family. It makes a mockery of his marriage, and the vows he took. I would have more respect for him if he said, Terri would want me to go on with my life, her parents are willing to accept the responsibility for her care, so I am filing for divorce and allowing her parents to care for her. Steff said that because Terri needs a feeding tube Terri is on life support, and Terri did not want to be on life support. I countered that Terri's brain capability if a far more compelling reason to killing her quickly. Many people have found themselves relying on feeding tubes and are not terminal. Keeping her alive, at worse, is no benefit and at best may allow a miracle to happen. Killing her, at worse, ends a life, and at best ___________________? Someone want to fill in the blank? Tell me how Terri benefits by dying? The same people who wish her a speedy death, claim she has no brain activity and can not sense pain. Remember no anesthesia was used when they removed the feeding tube. Something that is standard in a fully functional person.

I actually like staying off the strip. I charted my wins/loses for a couple trips and noticed my dramatic loses were always at the end of a session. The breaking point seemed to be 4 hours, regardless of game (craps, bj). Even switching games, tables, casinos, didn't help as much as a longish break. So now I stay off the strip, but travel over there for betting, never, ever, playing at the hotel I'm staying. Which means, yes, paying for rooms and meals instead of being comped. However, if I was planning a trip with some first timers, I'd plant their butts on the strip.

wild ass prediction, this is the year of the Crede. I am not too worried about his spring. I've already said this is the year Mark wins 20+. I feel alot better about my Mark prediction than Crede. I also am liking Garland. It's our 3 & 4 starters that leave me more worried.

March 22, 2005 Today's classic list was originally published on June 20, 1996. The Top 5 Least Impressive Mafia Nicknames 5> Jimmy "The Guy Who Scratches His Fingernails on the Chalkboard" Genarro 4> Warren "The Webmaster" Larotta 3> Carmine "The Lovely Swan" Carpecci 2> The Hitman Formerly Known As Vince and TopFive.com's Number 1 Least Impressive Mafia Nickname... 1> Vinnie "Say It With Flowers" LaRosa [ The Top 5 List www.topfive.com ] [ Copyright 1996, 2005 by Chris White ] Join ClubTop5 to see the whole list: http://www.topfive.com/html/clubtop5.shtml

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 05:17 PM) I respect the point you are making, and I'm sure it's valid for some.. but I don't agree with it one bit and I don't think it's fair to generalize the responses of those that do not have children. I lost a brother to drunk driving, don't you think that has an effect on my opinions on drunk driving? The father who lost a son to steroids, don't you think that has an effect on his opinion of steroids? Don't you think having a child effects your opinion on a parents role? 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. Some people go through life with the same opinions they had when they are 18. For others, getting married, perhaps having a friend die, or face a life threatening illness, changes them. They look at things differently. I accept that those things do not change everyone, perhaps getting married didn't change your opinion of spousal rights. 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.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 04:45 PM) All I can say is that at the time that was who she wanted making her decisions.. for 7 years he did everything he could for her until he was told that she would never get better.. with that in mind (that she was never going to get better) he continued to fight for what (he claims) she wanted (not to be on LS). At any time, it's my opinion, he could have walked away from this and went on to live life with his girlfriend (btw... his lawyer claims they are not engaged) and children. He hasn't done that choosing to continue to deal with this.. For me, that speaks volumes. But maybe I'm just stupid to think that there are people out there who love unconditionally and will do things out of the goodness of their heart no matter how much pain it causes them in their own lives. Keeping promises is important to me.. guess I expect that is so for others as well. Does them not being engaged add to or take away from your opinion of him? I'm a little old fashioned (obviously) and fathering two babies and not having plans to marry the mom, seems worse to me. Aren't the parents also loving unconditionally? They are wanting to care for someone who we all agree, isn't all there. They are wanting to sacrifice their lives to care for her. That speaks volumes to me. I've always respected your opinion, and am trying to understand wanting her dead and out of the way as being more altruistic than caring for her. I believe parents make a lifelong promise as well. There is also an attachment that is beyond words. Does anyone believe the nurses that report the husband has walked into her room, in the past and asked when is that b**** going to die? I believe there are so many exaggerations and out and out lies on both sides, this is getting unreal. I really believe that having kids changes opinions on this. Steff, Wino, ChiSoxy, and Queen are all kidless. Trust me things change when you have kids. Emotions and attachments are different. I know I would have argued to let the husband make the decision 18 years ago.

Have you thought about asking one of your buddies? Mathcing tux's would be really cool.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 04:31 PM) And I read that they are just involuntary reflexes.. everyone has an opinion I guess. Either way, I agree it isn't much, and isn't how I would like to live. I also wouldn't want my ex-wife making that decision. The mainstream media has been parading people who were considered to be in a persistent vegetative state with no hope of recovery, who now feed themselves, talk, and communicate. What was meaningful to me was they all report being able to hear what was going on around them. I really do not believe that is her future, it seems too far gone. I just can not believe we would allow a man who has divorced her in almost every sense to make this decision. And from what I've read, most of the court rulings have been upholding his right to decide her care over her parents. THat is different then ruling on whether she is better off dead or alive.

QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:22 AM) Her brain is liquified. There is no activity. She moves her eyes and body and can make noise. My understanding from listening to Doctors is that requires brain activity. Low level, but brain activity. Here's a question, do you think she would rather have her ex-husband making a life or death decision, or her parents? Can anyone really claim he is married to her in anyway but in a legal sense?

QUOTE(Queen Prawn @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 10:45 AM) Don't say that. You remind me of my baby brother. He is convinced he is the worst looking thing under the sun and he isn't. He recently lost a bunch of weight and he looks good for himself and better than that he is a great guy. I am not saying that just cuz he is my brother, but because I know he treats people right. As for mail order brides, one of Brian's buddies did that about 2 years ago and they are still happily married. (My only point to this is that people do actually do this and every now in then it actually works out.) Are you sure y'all aren't from Mississippi

QUOTE(ChiSoxyGirl @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 09:05 AM) Being at airports all day yesterday, I was lucky enough to watch the media feeding frenzy around this. My take on this is that Ms. Schaivo really died probably at least 10 years ago. I like to think that we are more than just breathing and blinking (stuff that is controlled by the allocortex, the most unevolved part of our brain). Without the cerebral cortex (neocortex, whatever you call it) the person she once was is gone. This isn't like a stroke or a brain lesion. I understand the concern that she's going to be killed--but medically (and I think spiritually) she's been dead a long time. And now all that's left is fighting over how long to keep her body around. As I examine this, I find myself agreeing with all of your premises, but not the conclusion. The slippery slope we would be putting ourselves on is placing a value on a human life based on IQ, personality, memory, brain function, etc. I do not see that as a prudent path for our, or any civilization, to take. A flat lined brain is one thing, but she is not brain dead as we currently believe that to mean. As I have discussed this with people. Those that have kids are far more likely to side with the parents, those without kids, more likely to side with the husband.

QUOTE(southsider2k5 @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 08:37 AM) Yeah, if anyone is the kings of overreacting to a common activity... Pitchers shag balls in the OF all of the time. Pay attention at a BP and you will see that. They do it while they stretch or work on long toss. AL pitchers always dream of being "real" baseball players

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 22, 2005 -> 08:25 AM) So first it was about the money. Then he abused her. Then he denied her care. Now he sleeps around on her. Is it me, or is every stop being pulled out to demonize this guy? And should someone have to live a life of paralysis indefinitely because his wife is brain dead? He waited 8 years before he asked to have the feeding tube removed. Eight years is a long enough time to establish whether or not there is hope. Seven levels of judicial review have now agreed with Michael Schiavo that her wishes should be honored. The parents don't. It was all those things. To further the conversation, it doesn't make sense to keep rehashing. I do not think it is possible to examine *his* wishes, without examining his motivation. Remember the basic situation here is he wants her dead. If he wasn't involved, none of this would be going on. The courts are defending his wishes as her guardian. There is no writen record of her wishes, only the word of a guy who would like her dead. Let's say a miracle happens and she sits up. Who does he live with? His wife or his girlfriend and kids? He should not be making this decision. Keeping her alive, at worse, is no benefit to her; at best spares her life. Killing her at worse, kills a human and at best ??

QUOTE(Gene Honda Civic @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 11:31 PM) Yeah, Ladies love confidence..... Confidence and BIG COCKS. So here's my advice: Go to the supermarket by yourself an appropriately sized and shaped fruit or vegetable, and then throw it down your shorts in a nice banana hammock. I know baggy pants are in these days, so you might have to rub up against the girl while you are asking her for her to notice. The key is to only rub your junk on her just enough for her to notice. Too much and you'll 1) creep her out, and 2) bruise your fruit or vegetable so that you can't have it for lunch later. So this Roman soldier asks his buddies for help with the ladies, and surprisingly receives the exact same advice as above. Fortunately for him the style of the day were tight speedo style shorts, and the outline of the potato (potatoe for GOPers) was clearly defined in his shorts. After walking through the marketplace, and receiving nothing but laughs, he returned to his buddy and asked for more advice. After carefully looking over the soldier and his potato, his buddy replied. Let's try this again, only this time, put the potato in the front.

The official reason for including solitaire in early versions of windows was to help people learn to use a mouse. People learn faster and more completely when they are involved in a game. What this means for businesses is they could put together a trivia type game to help employees learn products. Games could be designed to stress safety issues unique to that facility. Lan games can be used to develop team work, reduce stress, etc.

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 09:47 PM) If death is not the end, I see a benefit to this. Assuming that she said that she didn't want to be kept on life support in this kind of situation, which her husband and six levels of judicial review determined, her wishes would finally be honored. And this is about her, right? And her right to life and her right to die? Or maybe this isn't about life at all. Or maybe there'd still be a baby alive in Houston after the hospital took her off life support, against her parents wishes, because the money ran out. If we were certain those were her wishes, I would agree 100% and be writing that she should be euthanized in a painless manner, instead of slowly dehydrated. But the only person who will benefit from her death, is the same person who is pushing for her to die. If he wasn't involved in this, there would be no controversy. Keeping her alive, at worse, provides no benefit to Terri. Killing her, at worse, kills a human being. We should always error on the side of caution. As a parent I can not imagine the terror of having someone killing your baby. Especially when that someone is living in a new home with his common law wife and children. The guy has moved on. Let the parents care for their child. They raised her and have much more invested than he does. Interesting point regarding divorce Juggernaut. I assume that Florida is a no fault state. I wonder if this was in a state where you must have grounds, if that could have happened. I still can not agree with that process. There are some people **cough cough Hillary cough cough* who do not seem to mind their spouses sleeping around. Sweet irony then of conservatives pushing for divorce.

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 09:00 PM) http://www.responseunlimited.com/datacard.lasso?list=2968 Gerald Kelly, Theological Studies 1950. I can certainly understand that view, in fact I agree that is the worse case scenario. But notice there is not harm to the patient. He mentions no benefit. So worse case there is no benefit to her in keeping her alive. What is the worse case scenario to standing by and allowing her to die? Again, what is the benefit to Terri in allowing her to die? What is the potential harm in allowing her to die? I have yet to hear anyone describe a benefit to Terri in allowing her to die? If there is no benefit, but a slim to no chance of a brilliant and miraculous upside in keeping her alive, isn't the safest route choosing life? Don't we want our government to choose life for it's citizens?

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 21, 2005 -> 05:54 PM) That was the 500th post in this thread. Er, 501st. did you count them all?

QUOTE(winodj @ Mar 20, 2005 -> 08:42 AM) He pursued an aggressive course of therapy for five years. With no improvement, and according to every medical professional who has reviewed this that I've seen, no chance of improvement. If she's in a perpetual vegetative state with no hope of improvement, why would you try to get her further therapy? How is she being harmed by keeping her alive? Who benefits if she is dead? The very person who had the final say. That seems a perverse situation. This isn't a grieving spouse, weeping at her bedside. This is a guy who goes home to his common law wife and kids, while the parents mourn. I wonder if he will even allow them at the funeral. He had them barred from her bedside. From what I've heard, whenever she started to show signs of improvement, he changed therapists and treatments. If he cares about her so much, why is he living and making babies with someone else? We're looking at a guy who is planning a wedding for 5 minutes after the funeral v. parents who desperately want to care for their child. As a parent, I can truly feel their pain and it is an easy opinion for me. Ask anyone who has had children, you do not realize the bonds until you see them, or feel them kick. Again I ask. Eventually she is going to die, how is she harmed by delaying, if she is as bad as he claims. And how does she benefit? He should walk away, get divorced, and allow the parents to care for her. The government should never decide death for one of it's citizens. It is far easier for me to sympathies with the parents then a man who went ahead and started a new life. Her parents are willing to take the burden from him. Some would call it grandstanding, and there are some people who probably are, but for many in this, they are trying to save her life. And among the people who would prefer to see her die, some of those are grandstanding as well. And death by dehydration is a terrible way to die. We treat stray dogs and mass murderers better. Opening up another can of worms. If the kill her crowd wins, let the poor woman die a peaceful death by lethal injection. Most people would at least give a stray dog a bowl of water.

I was listening to Hannity this afternoon and he had a "Noble Award Nominee" Doctor who has spent 10 hours with her and he claims, she can follow objects with her eyes, moves from side to side. He claims will therapy she could be walking and functioning. This seems way optimistic to me based on what other Doctors have reported. He did mention some other things and a couple things that seem wrong to me. Every time a nursing home suggested therapy, the husband would move her to another home. If there is no hope, why was she moved from home to home? Two nurses have signed affidavits that she has chewed and swallowed food on her own. When they mentioned it to the hubby, he moved her to another facility. He is living with and has two children by another woman. Why doesn't he just let go, and allow her parents to care for her? That still makes no sense to me. She suffered through several infections and he would not authorize even giving her antibiotics. He would not allow the facility to take her outside? What harm could there possibly be in taking her outside? Was he afraid she would run away? I am rapidly losing any sympathy for this guy. I know the parents are probably clinging to too small a hope, but this guy seemingly doesn't care. I hope this hasn't turned into a pissing contest on this guy's part. It feels weird way over here with the GOP I feel like I crashed a party and I'm waiting to be kicked out.