"Do me a favor Davin and quit analyzing the structure of people's arguments instead of addressing what you know damn well they actually said."

What, don't like having your Jingoism taken to task?

Sorry, no deal. You keep injecting inferences of moral decrepency and empty premises like 'valuing life' INSTEAD of addressing the facts, and I'll keep chewing it up and spitting it out. As far as content, show me one thing I have not already addressed (and am addressing now for the second, third or fifth time in this re-hash post of yours), and I'll grant that you might, might have something to grouse about. But as it stands, I have been through all of these arguments again and again, and instead of YOU addressing my responses, you wait awhile and spit out the same thing again.

Look, you can't use phony snake-oil rhetorical technique and expect me to let it stand, and you certainly can't use my rejection of your snake-oil song and dance as an argument against me.

" “While the next of kin are given first consideration by section 744.312(2)(a), the statute does not mandatorily require that such an appointment be made. To the contrary, the statute specifically provides that ‘(t)he court may appoint any person who is qualified . . . whether related to the ward or not."

744.312, Florida Statutes (2000)."

Guardianship is a judiciary appointment. What laws were you refering to?


The laws respecting the next of kin, the laws respecting the rights of spouses, etc etc etc. Responsibility, by default falls to the spouse except in specific instances such as abuse or mental incapacity of the spouse. Now this is where it gets silly: what you are talking about, 'Legal Guardianship' is a specific legal term where the court appoints or recognizes via legal process (such as a living will), one person as having the right to make decisions for the good of another person. Guardianship can be assigned to over-ride or quit the repsonsibilities and rights of a spouse, but without that intervention by a legal authority, and this is the key point: The Spouse is immediately recognized as having the right and responsibilities to make desisions for the other partner in situations like this.

Basically, if you want to argue that in our society the Spouse is not recognized as next of kin, or as having the right to make decisions on the behalf of the incapacitated partner, thats YOUR argument to make. You are arguing against both precedence and the blatantly obvious. Its an absurd premise, but that hasn't stopped you yet.

Davin wrote: "No,it comes from the fact that they were all over the airwaves claiming MS was a murderer and an abuser".

Rob wrote: Your the only one I know that paid attention to that crap

(Thats a hand-wave if I ever saw one...)

Really, and what do the politicians say that are fanning the flames over this issue? Who do they quote? Whose arguments to they parrot? Did you listen to what Tom DeLay said? You seem to have picked up and nattered on about the moral decrepency of MS, is that something you thought up all by your lonesome?

But now lets return to what I was actually arguing, instead of your assertions about my unique powers of observation that somehow, amazingly, nobody else shares. You were seeking to have me justify why I dismissed the parents so easily- and I told you, because slander comes so easy to them... Because they seek not just to have their way, but seek to have their way by dragging MS through the mud with lies and innuendo. So your claim about me being the only person who 'pays attention' is completely totally absurdly irrelevant (besides being laughable). Not only have you not addressed the point that I was making, but you again used snake-oil rhetorical technique to attempt to turn it around as insult.

Am I addressing the substance of your argument sufficiently yet? Should I try harder, Rob?

As long as people are free to believe what they wish in this society, you nor science have any right to deny the Schindler's whatever hope they find in their beliefs no matter how misguided you think they are. (How dare they deny Science)

Another wholesale diversion. This has nothing to do with the freedom and rights of individuals to believe what they want. If the Schindlers, and their many supporters in the christian right simply wanted to believe that their daughter was alive, in spite of medical science and the best finsings of our judicial system, that is their business. But thats not where it ends. They and their supporters want to re-write the rule book, despite the beliefs of the majority of america, despite science, despite jurisprudence. They want to over-ride the due rights of another individual, using the full power of the federal government, they want to bring the judiciary to their heel.

As far as my opinion of the Schindlers (which is the actualcontext quote you are responding to), yeah, its my opinion, and as you say I have a right to it, that they don't have a leg to stand on and are trying to have their way based on faith alone. For me, yes, I lose respect for people like that who won't listen to reason.

lets remember the context. You said:
I presume alot of the resentment of the family came from poor relations with in-laws and a general disdane of the Christian right- which can be understandable.

To which I pointed out as the denial of scientific and medical fact as one of the reasons I didn't respect them.

So, here you are trying to broaden my claim to: 'people don't have a right to hold beliefs contrary to science'. Which is not what I said, not what I even inferred. Wasn't, as you so passionately put it: 'what I damn well actually said'

Am I addressing your content yet, Rob, or just your structure. Am I knocking on that deep meaning of yours yet? I can't tell.Let me try some more, just to make sure.

"Is this the major stick up your ass? If I'm on some "moral high-ground" then your scaling a peak across the divide."

So you say, but so far I have not appealed to any empty jingoes such as 'valuing life', nor have I quoted you out of context to make you sound like you are saying something you are not, nor have I made MORAL judgments against MS , inferred anyone was out for money, or .... etcetcetc.

"Please address this: At the Time MS petitioned to have his wife's life ended, most of the money was there."

Asked and answered- five or six times and at least once before with you. To which I'll only summarize:

1) The fact that there is no money now obviates the argument that he was ever doing this for money
2) The fact that he turned down the public documented offer of a cool million only obviates that he is now or ever was doing this for money.
3) The arguments made by pearse were not judged affirmatively at any point, and were not agreed with or found to be true by any review of any court.
4) No court has ever judged that he had a real conflict of interest. The document of Pearse is not a finding of fact, is nothing more than an opinion submitted before the court of someone (guadian ad litem) who is duty-bound to advocate in all ways possible for TS. Look up what role pearse had and read about what that role is supposed to be.

Said this all before, and here you are again, without answering anything I have already said on this topic. Oh, excuse me, what you 'know damn well what I actually said'

I said: "and over 30 court hearings determine that the husband has the right to say what happens in this"

Rob Replied I count 12 "hearings" during which Greer's decission may have been scrutinized including the US and Florida supreme courts "refusal to hear" decrees.

Which zooms right past my point at a hundred miles per hour. My point was never that greer has been upheld 30 times, my stated black-and-white point was that this issue has withstood over 30 court hearings and/or decisions.

Am I addressing the content of your argument yet, Rob? What you are actually saying?

You know those glass walls? You might want to clean them a bit so you actually get that they are glass.

And while you are at it, you think 12 judicial reviews of the initial decision by greer is somehow sub-par or not enough? Is this what you intend to argue?

Davin L.