Posted on 03/29/2005 8:58:34 AM PST by Long Cut
We, the Witness Protection Program For Freepers, aka the Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane, have through mutual discussion and rigourous thought, determined that:
1. The discussion threads regarding Terri Schiavo (hereafter referred to as "TS") have become too full of innuendo, rumormongering, hyperbole, hysteria, namecalling, paranoia, and general poor behavior to warrant participation.
2. Said threads have degenerated into "echo chambers", wherein the same, common thoughts are continually posted again and again, and the same old disreputable, unconfirmed and/or false urban myths are propagated.
3. Anyone who joins in said theads with alternative viewpoints to the most extreme posts are routinely driven away with slander, accusations, and vile namecalling.
4. No data or evidence contrary to the "prevailing opinions" are accepted, considered, or discussed; and in fact are rejected outright in most instances.
5. That the continued calls for armed insurrection, military or paramilitary involvement, impeachements of politicians and judges, and death threats are embarassing, stupid, shortsighted, doomed to failure, and contrary to most if not all conservative thought prior to this case, as well as damaging in the extreme to FR and the conservative movement as a whole.
6. That such emotional, hyperbolic, and propaganda-driven hysteria is in fact contrary to all conservatives USED to stand for.
7. That the holding up of swastika and other Nazi imagery towards the police and the Bushes, the use of children as political props, and the disruption of the peace at the Woodside Hospice can only reflect badly on conservatives in general, and should be discouraged.
8. That the pursuit of this issue to the exclusion of all others by the GOP has damaged, perhaps beyond repair, the pursuit of other important issues as well as the reputation of the GOP, FR, and conservatism.
The WPPFF is NOT of one mind as to the case of TS or its correct outcome. In fact, wide disagreement exists within our little group. However, we are united in our wish that reason and sanity be respected in the discussion, as well as the rights of all parties involved or participating. We wish to discuss this as adults and intellectuals, as conservatives and as FRiends, not as children screaming past each other on some playground of hysteria. We wish for facts and evidence to be provided, discussed reasonably, and considered fairly.
We reject all accusations of Naziism, "death cultism", or other slander as methods of debate. We reject the practice of "spamming" multiple threads, of posting unending vanities, and the posting of propaganda and calls for violence. We reject, in fact, all unseemly and childish behavior which has come to characterize this case on FR.
We DO invite others to come and reasonably discuss the issue. We have no problem with FReepers who wish to debate in a rational and fair manner, and with due respect for their fellow FReepers. We have NO problem with those whose views are formed by religion; however we reject "preaching" or "being beaten with a Bible" as legitemite debate tactics. Not all of us are Believers, and such tactics only cheapen the source.
If a FReeper finds this an acceptable meansd to discuss this and other issues, they are welcome to join in and participate. Those who find pleasure in attacks, flame-baiting, slander, stalking, and personal atacks will be ignored, and their egos will go unfed.
We assume this thread to be a zone of sanity in an overheated atmosphere. Thus, a general amnesty is in effect. If posters conduct themselves within the guidlines above, we will be happy to discuss and debate with you. If a poster wishes to apologize for past slips of the tongue, or for possible "over-the-top" statements to another, it will be graciously accepted, and your company welcome.
Please bring a sense of humor; we feel that too many have been taking themselves too seriously lately.
Let the discussion begin!
Signed,
The WPPFF, aka The Wild Turkeys, aka the Coalition of the Sane.
And a good example of how failure to vet these sources can be fodder for the enemies of FR..and the enemies of America.
Happens all the time. Sometimes the players on are the giving end sometimes on the receiving end. Depends on the issue, but when the heavy hand of government is involved, eventually one side or the other starts in with the slippery-slope-to-nazism smears.
In this case, it was a very emotional issue and I decided early on to let it run it's course.
Interesting stuff on that timeline. Might I suggest that this is the first time you heard it because you were rarely on a thread where anyone might have brought it up?
This pretty well sums up the past two weeks.
_______________________________________________
Agreed; the tension, fear and anger had an almost physical presence.
And it has only begun, in some ways.
bttt
I certainly agree with that. I think there's more to this than what's been discussed. I was on a thread and a poster brought up the fact that a lady who had her life support removed was elderly. So therefore, by implication, it was okay. What the heck does that mean? Is there a line to be drawn? And where is it? Is pulling the plug on a respirator and suffocating someone to death okay? Or only if they're old? Or if they're terminal? This is such a complex issue. I've seen people say a person should have no choice at all in the matter. I'm just not happy with the government making those choices for me. Sorry if I sound like I'm ranting.
And now that you've seen it in action, what are your thoughts about letting it run its course next time?
bttt
Have no idea.
The website has no substantiation of their timeline and events that take place, and they also make glaring omissions.
The facts still remain, that:
1. There was significant uncertainty about Terri's wishes, certainly no "clear and convincing evidence" that she wanted to be starved and dehydrated to death.
2. PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers.
3. MS had significant conflict of interest with Terri being allive: money and another family he establiished, so he is hardly an unbiased guardian.
4. Terri did NOT have a lawyers representing her interests. Her interests were only represented by her guardian, who had significant conflicts of interest, thus her rights to due process were denied.
5. Terri's parents offered MS to keep the money, book and movie deals, just let them take care of their daughter, and MS and Judge Greer refused.
6. In view of all of the above Greer ruled to not only withhold "artificial" nutrition or hydration, but food and hydration by any means, even specifically denying the petition to allow Terri to be given food and water by mouth.
IMO, that's far more destructive than not.
In this case, it was a very emotional issue and I decided early on to let it run it's course.
Very emotional indeed. But emotional to the point of taking Reagan's "Eleventh Comandment" and tossing it to the four winds. And that (the continued pariah-making) is still taking place today.
If someone had asked me three months ago if repeatedly labeling other posters as "death cultists" and "Nazis" and "good Germans" was acceptable here, I would have said that I seriously doubt it. Obviously, I was wrong about where the line is drawn - it's not the first time I've been wrong in my life, and it undoubtedly won't be the last, but regardless, it's kind of hard to toe the line if it's not clear where the line is.
Precisely. It does no good to just point fingers at judges while ignoring the fact that David Gibbs wasted two weeks arguing to all levels of the federal judiciary that "Judge Greer was evil" after Congress gave him the opportunity to plead his case de novo. The federal judiciary heard that all before, basicall told Gibbs "You're not presenting any new and substantive evidence".
They heard all that about Judge Greer at one time in the past, and tossed him and his pleadings out of the courtroom.
Within Florida law, there was enough. It is therefore Florida law which must be changed, and that is done through legislation, not from a bench. I do agree that there should be a higher standard of proof.
"2. PVS is misdiagnosed in 35-43% of the cases, according to several medical research papers."
Relevance? There is no credible evidence which suggests it was misdiagnosed HERE.
"3. MS had significant conflict of interest with Terri being allive: money and another family he establiished, so he is hardly an unbiased guardian."
See #1 above. No court found anything justifying ther denial of his guardianship.
"4. Terri did NOT have a lawyers representing her interests. Her interests were only represented by her guardian, who had significant conflicts of interest, thus her rights to due process were denied."
Which guardian? She had several.
"5. Terri's parents offered MS to keep the money, book and movie deals, just let them take care of their daughter, and MS and Judge Greer refused."
Which pretty much demolishes the "He did it for the money" slur. Besides, as the link I provided shows, they were unable to care for her. There is other documentation for that, BTW. Check out abstractappeal.com.
"6. In view of all of the above Greer ruled to not only withhold "artificial" nutrition or hydration, but food and hydration by any means, even specifically denying the petition to allow Terri to be given food and water by mouth."
Because this could have drowned her. She couldn't swallow
2. Can you cite sources that are substantiated?
3. The Schindlers would be considered unbiased?
4. There were two Guardians ad Litem.
5. Again, do you have substantiated proof?
6. I do have a problem with that. The reasoning was that she would choke to death. Now if the feeding tube was removed and she had been fed orally and then choked to death, where would that put us?
The Court of Appeals found he had an apparent conflict of interest. That is grounds for denial of guardianship in Florida and grounds for removal.
But I am curious as to why so many freepers, and especially my libertarian pals here, seem to think contracts that are violated remain contracts. Forget the court, as a matter of course, do you think should wink at broken contracts in general or just the marriage contract?
It was also in Wolfson's report to Jeb Bush.
You do know that Wolfson came out in opposition to Terris Law before he was named guardian, right? Is it too much to ask that an unbiased guardian be appointed? How about a lawyer?
Why no PET scan?
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.