LG

Yeah, right. That assertion comes from the suggestion of that possibility in the Carla Iyer affidavit, which is not only unsubstantiated, but clearly false. She was an LPN, not an RN, at the time she claims the events in the following quote from that affidavit happened. An LPN wouldn’t have the authority to do this on her own volition. Also, if she did it on a doctor or RN’s orders, there would be records. And especially, if she or anyone else even remotely suspected that Schiavo or anyone else had injected a patient with unauthorized medicine or other substances, there would be records of the event and some kind of investigation. (Unless the mighty Schiavo’s huge conspiracy was hard at work.) This woman is either intentionally lying or just plain nuts, maybe both.

David, what you wrote is not only irrelevant, but also wrong. First, Florida doesn’t recognize common law marriages. Neither do most other States, including your own. Second, even in the few (15) States that do recognize common law marriages, no matter how long a couple might live together or how many children they might have, they are not considered to be married by common law unless they hold themselves forth to be married. Most of the horrible stuff being bandied about all over the Web is utterly false, grossly misleading, or wild, unsubstantiated speculation. In order to be the monster some are trying to portray him as, Michael Schiavo would have to have marshaled a conspiracy of doctors, judges, and hundreds of other people, and kept them all marching in lockstep for 15 years. It’s just plain nuts! Assuming the man to be a mere mortal, like the rest of us, and not the devil incarnate, the only reasonable explanation for his actions is that he is honestly (even if misguidedly) trying to carry out Terri Schiavo’s wishes, as a matter of conscience. Otherwise, he’d be a fool not to have taken the millions he was offered and washed his hands of the matter.

It's not murder, mj. If Terri Schiavo said that she would not want to have her life prolonged in a situation such as this, and there is no reason to believe that she did not, then it is honoring her wishes and standing up for her rights.

That’s not only not the law, it’s morally wrong. It ignores one of the core aspects of both civil marriage and religious (Biblical) marriage. The one decision that affects this matter that we know without a doubt that Terri Schiavo made was to marry Michael Schiavo, thereby publicly declaring him and legally making him (not her parents) her proxy decision-maker in situations such as these. That, we absolutely know, was her choice. For anyone to attempt to replace her choice (Michael Schiavo) with someone else, without demonstrating clearly good reasons, is to defy her will and declare null her rights as a free adult human being.I’ll say it again. Terri Schiavo chose, and legally designated, Michael Schiavo to make exactly the sorts of decisions he has been making. He is carrying out the charge that she gave him, which he legally (and “before God”) accepted. For anyone, without clearly showing good cause, to attempt to prevent him from carrying out that charge is to defy Terri Schiavo’s will and legal rights. If they were successful, they would potentially undermine the rights and responsibilities of all spouses and the very basis of marriage. I’m not talking about “the sanctity of marriage.” I’m talking about the legal basis of and one of the reasons for marriage.

If that is contrary to her stated wishes, it hurts her rights (and those of others) to refuse treatment. That nurse is not believable. There is no support anywhere in the record for her statements about alleged events of ten years ago. In addition, some of what she says is clearly false. For example, I heard her say that during the year when she helped care for Terri, no males were allowed in Terri's room. That is so obviously false that it's laughable, but the interviewer didn't question it.

The answer to the question in the thread title is yes. But there is no reason for guardianship to change, so it has not. Many of the horrible things being said about Michael Schiavo, Judge Greer and other judges, and others are obviously on their face pure lies. Some of the less obviously false allegations, such as the allegations of abuse by Michael Schiavo, have been investigated and found to be of no substance. The video clips are a total of a few minutes edited from many hours of video. The awareness and intelligence they demonstrate are of the videographer and editor, not of the subject. It is quite easy to edit film or videotapes to appear to show something that they do not. That is done in movies all the time and is the reason why edited clips are not acceptable as evidence in courts or other valid truth-seeking forums. The judge viewed uncut video evidence, which shows just the opposite of what the clips are being used to try to show. Any “expert opinion” based on edited video is groundless and useless. The “estranged husband” nonsense is just that. The court records indicate that Michael Schiavo was Terri’s most faithful and frequent visitor for years, up to and including the 1998-2001 proceedings. He has continued regularly visiting her since then. He is still spending many hours with her, which is why the Schindlers are denied access to her at times. It seems pretty reasonable to me that they should not with her at the same time as he. The issue in this case is not and has never been what anyone else might want, it is what Terri Schiavo would want. That is what the court attempted to determine and ruled on, by the “clear and convincing” standard of evidence. That ruling and the proceedings that led to it have been reviewed and upheld at all higher levels. This is not and never has been about anyone wanting her dead. It has always been about wanting to determine and carry out her wishes. No matter what anyone else’s motives and goals might be, those were and are the motives and goals of the law and of the courts that apply the law and the facts to this case and others like it. Michael Schiavo claims to be trying to carry out Terri’s wishes. There is no credible reason to believe otherwise and quite a few reasons to think that he genuinely is trying to do just that, including his willingness to endure all the horrible accusations and his refusal to accept millions of dollars to wash his hands of the matter. The Schindler family, on the other hand, is on record as being willing to ignore Terri’s wishes.

The trees in my back yard are most definitely NOT pee-can trees. Praw-leens (about the best candy imaginable) are made with p[shwa]-cahns. (Shwa is that neutral vowel sound that's sort of like a short a, i, or u, but not really any of them.) The second syllables of "pecan" and "praline" are accented. Y'all got that?

The correct plural of "you."

Yep, Bob, the test is faulty. It lumps Texas in with Dixie. Although Dixie is the next best thing to Texas, to the extent that we even let them ally with us during the not-so-recent unpleasantness, it's not quite the same thing. An accurate test would have shown that I'm 99.44% pure Texan. That's even purer than the driven snow they have the panhandle (that's THE panhandle, as in the Texas panhandle, not some wanna-be). To my shame, I still have 0.56% Yankee impurity in me, from relatives who took part in some rather infamous legal proceedings in Plymouth Colony.

88% Dixie, which is about right for a native Texan whose parents came from Mississippi.

They are, but the point was the change from printing to printing of the definition on the referenced page in the book.

Raf, I no longer have my copy of the PFAL book but I know what was said in the class. The Juedes/Morton article cited was originally published in 1981. According to this later Juedes article, the definition was changed in the second printing (not edition) of PFAL.

Raf, in the filmed PFAL class, Wierwille said that heteros was of the same kind and allos was of a different kind. Whether he departed from Bullinger's definitions or just misspoke, I don't know. Either way, I think that both of them were wrong.

I’m no longer a Christian, so this really doesn’t matter to me, but it seems to me that there’s a big difference between committing a sin and not maintaining faith and corresponding obedience (as a way of living). Maybe I’m a pretty good example. According to TWI doctrine, I was saved, born again, “bound for heaven and all hell can’t stop me from getting there.” I “knew that I knew that I knew that I knew,” because I spoke in tongues. Be that as it may, I was sincere in confessing Jesus as lord and trying to faithfully live by the precepts of the Bible. I don’t know that I actually believed it, but I sure tried to convince myself that I did. I am no longer a Christian and don’t even believe in the Christian God or any other deity. I don’t go around “sinning” any more than I did as a Christian. The big difference in my life now is that I don’t believe in, seek, pray to, obey, or otherwise pay attention to the Christian God. (I hope that doesn’t offend anyone, it’s not meant to.) If I ever “was saved” or was on a path of salvation, but now am not, I think the reason most Christians who believe in a conditional salvation would give would be lack of faith (a condition of sin or disobedience), rather than any “sins” or specific disobedient acts. I don’t see this interpretation as self-serving. It seems like a (not the only) fairly reasonable interpretation of the Bible.

Does it foam at the mouth too?

Wierwille hasn’t a thing to do with this, Garth. Cynic is correct that you made several false statements regarding Calvin, Baptists, and persecution of Jews on Trinitarian grounds. You have provided no basis for the latter two and what you have provided regarding Calvin neither supports your more rabid claims nor refutes anything Cynic has said. Cynic never suggested that Calvin wielded no power or bore no responsibility for the deaths of Servetus or others. Rather, he plainly stated the opposite.

I can't make the get-together but I'll make a special effort to bash GreaseSpot on April 21.

You can’t fairly judge people or events of the past by modern norms. Execution was a pretty standard punishment for heresy throughout most of history, including the history of Israel, as related in the Bible. Beheading (with an axe or heavy sword, not like the recent terrorist beheadings) was perhaps the most humane form of execution in Calvin’s time, and among the more humane forms of execution ever devised.

This seems contradictory to the content and tone of most of your input to this thread. Why in the world would you suggest that "we can only" make a completely unfounded assumption? Wouldn't it be more reasonable to make no assumption at all regarding this matter?

Here you go, Gladtobeout. Here are a couple more: The "sea monster" is a BASKING SHARK (click link for more info). Notice the tiny skull and the huge mouth and gill area behind and underneath it. Now consider how a decaying basking shark carcass would look after the mouth and gill area sloughed off. This is why basking shark carcasses have been mistaken for carcasses of pleisiosaur-like creatures.

Be careful. They barbecue pigs in Georgia.

What if you poured the water into a mixture of hydrochloric acid and assorted enzymes in a 100 degree environment and kept the whole mess churning constantly?

It'll get worse come December, when millions of evil-doers will stealthily place gifts in stockings "in the guise of innocence."

BTW, I doubt if the suit was so much about money, but rather about attention. It seems to me that the woman wanted to be fawned over as some sort of victim.

Heck, Vickles, not only was this 49 year old (not exactly elderly) woman the mother of an 18 year old daughter, her daughter was with her at home at the time they dropped off the cookies. So was her mother, who really was elderly, but apparently suffered no ill effects from anxiety. Also, given that the woman called the police, there is no way that she didn't know that night that the whole thing was nothing more than two girls trying to do a nice thing for their neighbors. In other words, she knew that night that she had been in no danger and there was no cause for alarm. One possibly telling thing in The Denver Post article is, "She thought perhaps they were burglars or some neighbors she had tangled with in the past, she said." Makes me think that she may have a history of being a crank.