Posted on 10/26/2003 11:39:46 PM PST by Normally a Lurker
What Should Happen With Terri S.
I have been asked, and I have seen various other people be asked, in numerous "save Terri" threads at this site in recent days, the following question (in various forms):
Do you think it's OK to starve Terri to death? Do you think it's OK to starve and dehydrate Terri? Do you think it's OK to kill Terri? Do you think it's OK to murder Terri? Etc., etc.
Apparently, such questions will be repeated over and over again for so long as this subject continues to be discussed at this site. Therefore, for future linking and to avoid repetition in individual future threads, I am posting this thread to more fully respond to these questions than I have generally done in various threads to date.
My personal desires regarding my own future medical care:
If I am ever found by two medical specialists (of my own choosing if I've been capable of so choosing, or, otherwise, of my wife's choosing if she is available and capable of selecting them, or, otherwise, as may be selected by my previously designated primary care physician, currently Dr. Xxxxxxx X. Xxxxxxx), who specialize in treating the primary condition then effecting my health, to be in a condition where I am unable to clearly communicate and also in a condition of severe physical impairment (e.g., with substantial brain damage, and/or substantial paralysis, and/or in severe and virtually untreatable pain) and with a prognosis of less than a 20% long-term change of recovering an ability to clearly communicate at least rudimentarily (e.g., via blinking, or tapping, or squeezing, etc.); then I desire to not be artificially sustained via devices such as feeding tubes, ventilators, or the like.
Such devices may be used, in any case, for a very short-term period sufficient only to allow reasonable time for proper diagnosis and prognosis (e.g., a few days if necessary); but such use should not be continued beyond that period unless the prognosis a greater than 20% chance of a substantial recovery (at least to the point of facilitating clear communication as described above), and such use should be discontinued, in any case, after a period of six months if such substantial recovery has not by then occurred.
For further clarity: If the initial long-term prognosis for a substantial recover is less than 20%, the use of such devices should be discontinued immediately upon the arrival at that prognosis.
Finally, if the short-term prognosis of my condition ever become terminal or end-stage, sufficient pain controlling medication should be administered to me, or should made available to me for self administration id I am so capable, to ensure that my passage of time during my remaining life will be as painless as possible.
As to the background circumstances associated with Terri Schiavo:
It is my understanding that Terri had, prior to her encountering her current condition, expressed desires comparable in nature to those expressed by me above, albeit expressed by her in greatly less detailed terms. It is my understanding that she expressed such desires to at least three different people and that at least three people have given testimony to that effect in court hearings on this matter.
I recognize that many people here elect to discredit that testimony since the three people so testifying were apparently her husband, her brother-in-law, and her sister-in-law. I also recognized that her parents, and possibly other of her blood-relatives, have said that they have never heard her express such desires. Further, I have no reason to doubt any of these peoples words - neither that of her husband, her brother-in-law, her sister-in-law, her parents, or her other blood-relatives.
I recognize that to some posters at this site, the statements of her parents, and possibly other blood-relatives, seem to contradict those of her husband and her two mentioned in-laws. However, I see no conflict here. Why, you may ask.
I find it perfectly reasonable that Terri could freely express such desires to her husband and in-laws, but might have found it best to avoid such a discussion with her parents, who clearly seem to have an attitude, as do many posters at this site, that would have made it very uncomfortable for Terri to express such desires to them.
In any case, the courts (more than just the current Judge) have found the testimony regarding Terri expressing such desires to be creditable. Therefore, her desires in this regard are a matter of public record, essentially the same as if she had executed a "living will" and it was a matter of public record.
As to the questions as to what should be done to (rather FOR) Terri Schiavo:
Simply put, we/they should comply with her previously expressed wishes.
I prefer to personalize the following comments, so they are made in relation to my own desires regarding my own care as detailed above. To comply with these desires should not be referred to starving me to death, killing me, or murdering me. Such references would simply be absurd.
To the contrary, to refuse to comply with these desires, thereby forcing me to continue existing in circumstances similar to Terri's current circumstances would be worse than just unkind; to me, it would be a fate worse than death.
So finally, in Terri's case, I submit that the kind thing to do is to comply with her previously expressed desires. The unkind thing to do is to force her to continue to exist in circumstances that I (and likely she also) consider to be worse than death.
So I say, do the kind thing FOR Terri; don't continue to do the unkind thing TO her.
As to the numerous irrelevant issues being discussed at this site:
Regarding what should happen with Terri, the only important factor is her previously expressed desires. Any issues posters have raised here regarding her husband actions, or those of his lawyer, her doctors, any judges, any "death-loving" conspiracies, etc. (whether the various wild accusations have any basis in fact or not) are simply not relevant to the basic issue.
I basically agree with your point on this aspect. But, it the need for a feeding tube is the result of the type of conditions I outlined in my own "living will" above, then I think it should be used only to the extent I specified for me.
The primary factor, for me at least, is the ability to communicate (at least at a minimal level as noted above). Absent that, I can see no reason to exist absent that ability. IMHO, one would either be completed cognatively brain dead, or would suffer an unbearable level of frustration.
I agree that this is troublesome. It is the most difficult aspect of this matter for me to understand. I generally try to avoid speculating; but in this case I will speculate: It may be that he then (relatively early on) had hopes that she might recover, but then a few years later concluded that that hope would never be realized.
As to the money, if you understand even the minimal cost of care in nursing home or equivalent facilities, the money awarded should have run out long before now. I understand why he sometime along the way had to apply for medicaid coverage for her.
I found my Mother in similar circumstances (for a number of years) and eventually had to arrange for her to be on medicare.
Readers here might note that in my own "living will" (see above) I do not address what thing or things may have caused me to arrive at the state described therein. This is because I would not want to continue for the long term in such a state in any case - i.e., regardless of whether or not it resulted from an illness, an accident, an attack/criminal act on the part of someone else, or whatever other such cause might occur. My desires as expressed above should be carried out, regardless of what or who was behind the cause.
Therefor I think that Terri's previously expressed desires regarding herself should be complied with, even if it turns out that her husband intentionally or unintentionally caused it to occur (a possibility that I believe to be highly unlikely, but I mention it here primarily just to emphasize my central point).
So . . . . please keep any "screaming about her husband" in this thread to a minimum. His past, current, or future actions in this matter are simply not relevant to the point(s) made above.
I am on a short schedule today, but here is some of the information I pieced together, from a substantial amount received from another forum member for review, regarding Richard Pearse, Attorney at Law who was Guardian Ad Litem (GAL) for Terri Schiavo at one time. Late tonight I will address all this information in full - Ed--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In Short - WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?!:
Everyone is talking about a new appointed GAL, when the previous GAL's findings were totally ignored. What is this, a "fish until you win" venture on the part of George Felos and his client Michael Schiavo!?
GAL Richard L. Pearse, Jr., Attorney at Law was suddenly dismissed after filing his report in which he stated that it was his opinion that
(1). Michael Schiavo was not a suitable guardian due to his standing to gain financially and
(2). The possibility of rehabilitation for Terri was too great to advocate any kind of Exit Protocol.
George Felos is the one who asked for a GAL in the first place! Felos doesn't like what he hears so he gets Judge Greer, who is legally blind per news reports, to totally quash this experts testimony. THIS IS CRAZY!
ATTORNEY PEARSE NEEDS TO BE CONTACTED IMMEDIATELY - HE IS EASY TO CONTACT PER BELOW:
October 24, 2003 - News Article
An independent guardian has not served in the Schiavo case since 1999, when Clearwater attorney Richard Pearse Jr. issued a report recommending Michael Schiavo not be allowed to disconnect Terri Schiavo's feeding tube among a number of other matters.
PEARSE SAID IN AN INTERVIEW LAST WEEK HE MADE THAT DETERMINATION BECAUSE MICHAEL SCHIAVO STOOD TO BENEFIT FINANCIALLY FROM HIS WIFE'S DEATH BY INHERITING ABOUT $750,000 IN A MEDICAL TRUST FUND.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HERE'S SOME PIECED TOGETHER INFO: - Some information is repetitive
--
RICHARD, L PEARSE, JR - FLORIDA ATTORNEY AT LAW,
GUARDIAN AD LITEM FOR TERRI SCHIAVO - AT ONE POINT IN THIS LITIGATION
In June 1998, soon after Michael asked the court for permission to remove Terri's feeding tube, the court appointed Richard L. Pearse, Jr. Attorney at Law as Terri's Guardian Ad Litem (GAL). Pearse's job was to investigate the facts of Terri's case and represent her interests in court. He issued a 10-page report in Dec. 1998 on his finding, and also in January 2000 testified on his findings before Judge Greer.
Ironically, at the beginning of the case in 1998, it was Attorney George Felos who requested an independent guardian for Terri Schiavo and recommended Richard Pearse Jr, Attorney at Law.
At a January 2000 trial, Pearse concluded that he had not found clear and convincing evidence that Terri would have rejected life support. He said she should be kept alive and questioned Michael Schiavo's credibility.
Pearse urged in no uncertain terms that the petition for removing the feeding tube be denied. He made it clear that he did not believe Schiavo's sudden recollection of Terri's wishes.
Pearse stated: "Regarding the pending petition filed by Mr. Michael Schiavo to withdraw the gastric feeding tube which sustains the ward (Terri), (ward = Terri throughout) Mr. Schiavo claims that the ward (Terri) told him after their marriage that she would not want to be kept alive artificially."
Pearse wrote, "Mr. Schiavo indicated strongly to me (Attorney Pearse) that his petition to withdraw life support has nothing to do with the money held in the guardianship estate, which he would inherit upon the ward's (Terri's) death as her sole heir-in-law."
Pearce continued: "The only direct evidence probative of the issue of the ward's (Terri's) intent is Mr. Schiavo's hearsay testimony regarding removal the ward's feeding tube which would inevitably result in her death" However, his credibility is necessarily adversely affected by the obvious financial benefit to him in the event of her death while still married to him. Her death also permits him to "get on" with his life, as Mr. Schiavo stated during questioning."
Per Attorney Pearse's Report - "Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward's death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions developed by the investigation, DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD." <-VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL WORDS - ED
In his report, Pearse said Michael Schiavo was not a credible witness to his wife's end-of-life wishes because he waited years before coming forward with the claim that she wanted to die. Pearse also noted that Michael Schiavo would benefit financially from her death and be able to "move on with his life" in Mr Schiavo's words.
Pearse stated that after Michael Schiavo received the malpractice settlement, "HE HAS A CHANGE OF HEART CONCERNING FURTHER TREATMENT OF HIS WIFE." Pearse, noting that Schiavo would benefit financially if his wife died, recommended that the feeding tube remain.
That Michael Schiavo's attitude and actions changed as soon as the money from the malpractice suit was in the bank (Feb. 1993) was not lost in Pearse's Expert Court Appointed Review. - (News Report Comment)
Per Attorney Pearse - "From that point forward, the ward's husband has isolated the ward from her parents, has on at least one occasion refused to consent for the ward to be treated for a urinary tract infection (in the hopes that she would die), and, ultimately, four years later, has filed the instant petition for the withdrawal of life support on the basis of evidence apparently known only to him which could have been asserted at any time during the ward's illness," he said.
Attorney Pearse said he was "troubled by the fact that Michael waited until 1998 to petition to remove the feeding tube, even though he claims to have known her wishes all along, and that he waited until he won a malpractice suit based on a professed desire to take care of her into old age".
Pearse continued: As her husband, Michael would inherit what is left of her malpractice award, originally $700,000, which is held in a trust fund administered by the court. Accounting of the fund is sealed. BUT MICHAEL'S LAWYER, GEORGE FELOS, SAID MOST OF IT HAS BEEN SPENT ON LEGAL FEES ASSOCIATED WITH THE CUSTODY DISPUTE.
Pearse also said he did not find Joan and Scott Schiavo's testimony credible.<<<<<<<<<<<<<
* * INTERESTING - By the time the case came to trial in Jan. 2000, Michael Schiavo had found two witnesses to corroborate his version of Terri's wishes: Scott Schiavo, his brother, and Joan Schiavo, a sister-in-law. When Pearse initially became involved in 1998 Michael had NO OTHER WITNESSES TO HIS STORY * * .
Pearse stated "One of the interesting and ironic aspects of this case is that all of the parties have portrayed themselves as representing her interests," he said. "It's always desirable that a person in Terri's position have an independent representative who has no particular interest in the case other than Terri." (THIS IS STANDARD JUDICIAL PROCEDURE IN CASES LIKE THIS - PARTICULARLY WITH THE LACK OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN FAMILY MEMBERS. - Ed)
Pearse recommended that a guardian ad litem (not necessarily himself) be appointed to protect Terri's interests on a go-forward basis.
Charging Pearse was "biased", Felos promptly had Pearse removed as guardian ad litem. No one was appointed in his place by Judge Greer.
GEORGE FELOS RECOMMENDED A GUARDIAN AD LITEM IN THE FIRST PLACE. FELOS DIDN'T LIKE WHAT THE EXPERT WITNESS ATTORNEY PEARSE HAD TO SAY, THEN HAD JUDGE GREER REMOVE PEARSE AND NULLIFY THIS EXPERT WITNESSES TESTIMONY - IS THIS DUE PROCESS AND PROPER ETHICAL STANDARDS REQUIRED OF A FLORIDA JUDGE ?! WHAT IS GOING ON HERE! - ED
Greer accepted their testimony as "creditable and reliable." .......(This is inferior to "clear and convincing" required in Attorney Pearse's expert report, and clearly would have been the prudent requirement under Florida Law for the Judge to require in these unusual circumstances - Ed.
Judge Greer also dismissed the criticism that "Michael Schiavo has not acted in good faith by waiting eight plus years" to file his petition. "THAT ASSERTION HARDLY SEEMS WORTHY OF COMMENT," GREER SAID.
GREER RULED IN MICHAEL SCHIAVO'S FAVOR.
Other Added Info:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pearse stated in this report: "Since there is no corroborative evidence of the ward's (Terri's) intentions, and since the only witness claiming to have such evidence is the one person who will realize a direct and substantial financial benefit from the ward's death, the undersigned guardian ad litem is of the opinion that the evidence of the ward's intentions developed by the investigation, DOES NOT MEET THE CLEAR AND CONVINCING STANDARD."<- THESE ARE VERY IMPORTANT LEGAL WORDS - ED
VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV
The Schindlers had contacted a woman Michael dated in 1991 who told them Michael had confessed to her he did not know what Terri would want. Although the woman refused to sign an affidavit, it bought the Schindlers some time.
And with it, they found Trudy Capone.
A former co-worker of Michael's, Capone signed an affidavit on May 9, 2001, stating "Michael confided in me all the time about Terri ... He said to me many times that he had no idea what her wishes were."
Attorney Patricia Anderson, who began representing the Schindlers in 2001, said the failure to replace Pearse has hindered the parents' case because Michael Schiavo, as Terri's legal guardian, controls her medical care and even her visitors.
The parents' hands are tied in terms of what evidence they could present," she said, "because they didn't have access to Terri. They're not even permitted to know if she's been running a temperature. If a guardian ad litem had been appointed, it would have been a different story."
276 posted on 10/26/2003 8:27 PM EST by pc93 (A good site to visit is http://www.terrisfight.org . Oct. 15th 2pm death order must be stopped)
"Swab" She looks pretty aware to me there. Rather PO'd actually. Here is the page where that came from with several more videos.
I would like to the the GAL's entire report to both chect the accuracy of some of these "quotes" AND to put such comments in their overall context - which I've been separately informed had many postive things to say about MS's extraordinarily good care of Terri!!!!!!!!!
If I've been misinformed, I'd like to know that, but if not, readers here should be allowed to see the ENTIRE report, not just a few out of context/edited/changed(??) comments.
AFFIDAVIT _________STATE OF FLORIDA )
COUNTY OF PINELLAS )BEFORE ME the undersigned authority personally appeared CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N., who being first duly sworn, deposes and says:
1. My name is Carla Sauer Iyer. I am over the age of eighteen and make this statement of my own personal knowledge.
2. I am a registered nurse in the State of Florida, having been licensed continuously in Florida from 1997 to the present. Prior to that I was a Licensed Practical Nurse for about four years.
3. I was employed at Palm Garden of Largo Convalescent Center in Largo, Florida from April 1995 to July 1996, while Terri Schiavo was a patient there.
4. It was clear to me at Palm Gardens that all decisions regarding Terri Schiavo were made by Michael Schiavo, with no allowance made for any discussion, debate or normal professional judgment. My initial training there consisted solely of the instruction "Do what Michael Schiavo tells you or you will be terminated." This struck me as extremely odd.
-1-
5. I was very disturbed by the decision making protocol, as no allowance whatsoever was made for professional responsibility. The atmosphere throughout the facility was dominated by Mr. Schiavo's intimidation. Everyone there, with the exception of several people who seemed to be close to Michael, was intimidated by him. Michael Schiavo always had an overbearing attitude, yelling numerous times such things as "This is my order and you're going to follow it." He is very large and uses menacing body language, such as standing too close to you, getting right in your face and practically shouting.
6. To the best of my recollection, rehabilitation had been ordered for Terri, but I never saw any being done or had any reason at all to believe that there was ever any rehab of Terri done at Palm Gardens while I was there. I became concerned because Michael wanted nothing done for Terri at all, no antibiotics, no tests, no range of motion therapy, no stimulation, no nothing. Michael said again and again that Terri should NOT get any rehab, that there should be no range of motion whatsoever, or anything else. I and a CNA named Roxy would give Terri range of motion anyway. One time I put a wash cloth in Terri's hand to keep her fingers from curling together,
-2-
and Michael saw it and made me take it out, saying that was therapy.
7. Terri's medical condition was systematically distorted and misrepresented by Michael. When I worked with her, she was alert and oriented. Terri spoke on a regular basis while in my presence, saying such things as "mommy," and "help me." "Help me" was, in fact, one of her most frequent utterances. I heard her say it hundreds of times. Terri would try to say the word "pain" when she was in discomfort, but it came out more like "pay." She didn't say the "n" sound very well. During her menses she would indicate her discomfort by saying "pay" and moving her arms toward her lower abdominal area. Other ways that she would indicate that she was in pain included pursing her lips, grimacing, thrashing in bed, curling her toes or moving her legs around. She would let you know when she had a bowel movement by flipping up the covers and pulling on her diaper and scooted in bed on her bottom.
8. When I came into her room and said "Hi, Terri", she would always recognize my voice and her name, and would turn her head all the way toward me, saying "Haaaiiiii" sort of, as she did. I recognized this as a "hi", which is very close to what it sounded like, the whole sound
-3-
being only a second or two long. When I told her humrous stories about my life or something I read in the paper, Terri would chuckle, sometimes more a giggle or laugh. She would move her whole body, upper and lower. Her legs would sometimes be off the bed, and need to be repositioned. I made numerous entries into the nursing notes in her chart, stating verbatim what she said and her various behaviors, but by my next on-duty shift, the notes would be deleted from her chart. Every time I made a positive entry about any responsiveness of Terri's, someone would remove it after my shift ended. Michael always demanded to see her chart as soon as he arrived, and would take it in her room with him. I documented Terri's rehab potential well, writing whole pages about Terri's responsiveness, but they would always be deleted by the next time I saw her chart. The reason I wrote so much was that everybody else seemed to be afraid to make positive entries for fear of their jobs, but I felt very strongly that a nurses job was to accurately record everything we see and hear that bears on a patients condition and their family. I upheld the Nurses Practice Act, and if it cost me my job, I was willing to accept that. 9. Throughout my time at Palm Gardens, Michael Schiavo was focused
-4-
on Terri's death. Michael would say "When is she going to die?," "Has she died yet?" and "When is that bitch gonna die?" These statements were common knowledge at Palm Gardens, as he would make them casually in passing, without regard even for who he was talking to, as long as it was a staff member. Other statements which I recall him making include "Can't anything be done to accelerate her death - won't she ever die?" When she wouldn't die, Michael would be furious. Michael was also adamant that the family should not be given information. He made numerous statements such as "Make sure the parents aren't contacted." I recorded Michael's statements word for word in Terri's chart, but these entries were also deleted after the end of my shift. Standing orders were that the family wasn't to be contacted, in fact, there was a large sign in the front of her chart that said under no circumstances was her family to be called, call Michael immediately, but I would call them, anyway, because I thought they should know about their daughter.
10. Any time Terri would be sick, like with a UTI or fluid buildup in her lungs, colds, or pneumonia, Michael would be visibly excited, thrilled even, hoping that she would die. He would say something like,
-5-
"Hallelujah! You've made my day!" He would call me, as I was the nurse supervisor on the floor, and ask for every little detail about her temperature, blood pressure, etc., and would call back frequently asking if she was dead yet. He would blurt out "I'm going to be rich!" and would talk about all the things he would buy when Terri died, which included a new car, a new boat, and going to Europe, among other things.
11. When Michael visited Terri, he always came alone and always had the door closed and locked while he was with Terri. He would typically be there about twenty minutes or so. When he left Terri would be trembling, crying hysterically, and would be very pale and have cold sweats. It looked to me like Terri was having a hypoglycemic reaction, so I'd check her blood sugar. The glucometer reading would be so low it was below the range where it would register an actual number reading. I would put dextrose in Terri's mouth to counteract it. This happened about five times on my shift, as I recall. Normally Terri's blood sugar levels were very stable due to the uniformity of her diet through tube feeding. It is medically possible that Michael injected Terri with Regular insulin, which is very fast acting, but I don't have
-6-
any way of knowing for sure.
12. The longer I was employed at Palm Gardens the more concerned I became about patient care, both relating to Terri Schiavo, for the reasons I've said, and other patients, too. There was an LPN named Carolyn Adams, known as "Andy" Adams who was a particular concern. An unusual number of patients seemed to die on her shift, but she was completely unconcerned, making statements such as "They are old - let them die." I couldn't believe her attitude or the fact that it didn't seem to attract any attention. She made many comments about Terri being a waste of money, that she should die. She said it was costing Michael a lot of money to keep her alive, and that he complained about it constantly (I heard him complain about it all the time, too.) Both Michael and Adams said that she would be worth more to him if she were dead. I ultimately called the police relative to this situation, and was terminated the next day. Other reasons were cited, but I was convinced it was because of my "rocking the boat."
13. Ms. Adams was one of the people who did not seem to be intimidated by Michael. In fact, they seemed to be very close, and Adams would do whatever Michael told her. Michael sometimes called Adams at
-7-
night and spoke at length. I was not able to hear the content of these phone calls, but I knew it was him talking to her because she would tell me afterward and relay orders from him.
14. I have contacted the Schindler family because I just couldn't stand by and let Terri die without the truth being known.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.
CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N.
The foregoing instrument was acknowledged before me this 29 day of August, 2003, by CARLA SAUER IYER, R.N., who produced her Florida's driver's license as identification, and who did take an oath.
Notary Public
My commission expires xxxxx
Can you give us the source for this, pc93? A link to the full document?
Since "her previously expressed desires" have been relayed to us solely by her husband whose actions are under suspicion, you cannot logically divorce his motives from his testimony. Michael's testimony is the basis upon which a death blow is delivered to his Terri.
Furthermore, let me narrow it down regarding what would have historically been society's primary obligation in this case (number 1 interest is to protect innocent human life):
Notice the essential points in this statement which I have bolded. The disconnect in logic could not be bigger. The 'basic issue' having been defined as 'her previously expressed desires' the truth of whether or not her 'previously expressed desires' have been accurately made known is dismissed as irrelevant irregardless of facts.
Astounding!
It is also noteworthy that the subject of 'issues' has been characterized as 'various wild accusations' and '"death loving" conspiracies' without any substantiation that they are wild or conspiratorial. This is quickly followed up by suggesting that even 'a basis in fact' should be ignored.
Funny ... in a morbid way. That is sort of the 'bait and switch' combined with the 'red herring' tactic of distraction. James Carville, read and learn, you are a piker at this.
NL phrase is as sly as the question a prosecuter might put before a jury: "NL, are you still beating your wife?" because the jury might not notice the word "still" presumes prior facts not substantiated.
NL is fond of this sort of phraseology, (see http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1007877/posts?page=200#200 where I exposed another of his attempts) so be on the lookout for more of it from him and other, far more obnoxious and malevolent, opponents.
It is my hope more of us start to unravel these attempts rather than let the trolls provoke us with anger and thereby distract our threads. It is my opinion, and apparently now that of others, that Normally a Lurker is an excellent source for FReepers to practice self control.
I don't suggest that you hold your breath waiting for poster "pc93" to comply with that request. Apparently his/her only assignment here is make the following post on as many theads and to as many poster here as possible. The same post was made over 50 times by "pc93" in the past 3 days, and apparently no other posts have ever been made by him/her at this site.
(A good site to visit is http://www.terrisfight.org . Oct. 15th 2pm death order must be stopped)
"pc93" registered at this site on 8/30/03 (apparently as an observer for the www.terrisfight.org group) and made no posts here until starting the above repetitive post on 10/23/03.
Since "pc93" is most likely a rep from the www.terrisfight.org site where that heavily edited/extreacted/etc. version is posted, it is also likely that he/she of a close associate of him/her is the one who prepared that edited/extracted/etc. version. It's therefore is unlikely that he/she wants to share the full text document with us.
Such tactics seem highly inappropriate.
This (the heart o your "counteragument") is simply untrue, and it's seems likely that you should know that, especially since numerous other posters who share your views (part of your crowd so to speak) have acknowledged that at least two others have testified to this (and as I discussed in the first part of this thread).
I realize that you may also not consider them creditable; but you IMHO are definitely not creditable if you would present such as obvious untruth at the "heart" of your argument.
This renders the rest of your two very similar / almost idential posts on that point meaningless and not worthy of further response by me.
If you want to continue trying to game-play with me, rather than trying to take an honest, objective, approach, please go elsewhere and quit wasting my time with untruths, out of context "quotes", heavily eadited "quotes", etc.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.