Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to The New Coffee Room. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free.


Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Terry Shiavo's brain was half the normal weight; Autopsy found no evidence of abuse
Topic Started: Jun 15 2005, 08:10 AM (4,306 Views)
jazzyd
Member Avatar
Junior Carp
89th (and Ivorythumper),

I've posted my thoughts and you've (both) seen what is surely one of the most extensive dictionary entries for the word "medium". :biggrin:

At this point, if we don't agree, I don't think we are going to get anywhere. I believe the entry supports Phlebas' usage, but I would prefer not to spend any more time discussing a single word (not least of all because my dinner's ready!). So, I think I will bail out of this thread here.

All the best,


David
One has a stronger hand when there's more people playing your same cards.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Jazzy, thanks for the PM.

Basically, here is the situation:

Jazzy approached this situation with facts and intelligence...a complete opposite strategy than Phlebe.

I didn't have the full OED description, which is the only place that states that media or mediums are interchangeable. Now hear me out...

Literally, I have checked dozens of dictionaries and they all state that mediums is only used when talking about psychics or other specific entities. They also state that the plural "media" is used to describe what Phlebas was originally talking about - blogs and other news and entertainment sources.

Using trade journals and everyday jargon as talking points for your argument is idiotic and I would have expected Phlebe to know better.

Every "usage" sources that I found also stated that "mediums" is barely used anymore and if it is used, it's purpose is to identify that you're speaking about entities specifically and not news and entertainment sources.

So basically the OED full version does give the option of using mediums, but it's not only obsolete and almost always wrong, it is only possible in some instances and in some english forms. Quite a stretch if you ask anyone.

Thanks Jazzy for sharing the full version, though...it's refreshing to "debate" with someone that has a level of maturity not exhibited by Phlebas.

The fact that Phlebas was talking about objects that should be referred to as media, and used mediums...he was generally incorrect, twice.

Perhaps he still wont admit it, or he'll hang onto the OED full version giving him a glimmer of hope...but if he has any common sense, an ability to read every single dictionary out there, every usage manual, and not use trade journals as legit sources, he'll just say that he used the word incorrectly.

Had he not made an unwarranted snap at me at the very beginning, I wouldn't have had to expose his mistake.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
Larry: You've called me a liar in several cases including this thread, so don't get all hot under the collar. Maybe you think it is ok for you to call others liars, but not to be called one yourself when that is what you are doing. Who knows? Your comment was not metaphorical, it was literal. Here are your quotes:

Here a few posts ago in the NCR, is Larry: "Jeffrey, that is simply not true. Now I think you're smarter than that, but I might be wrong. I simply made the comment that her last name was Schindler, and mentioned that this was ironic, given the situation. Nowhere did I ever say she was related to him."

And here is what you originally said: "Does anyone else find it ironic that her maiden name is Schindler? Her ancestor managed to help hundreds of Jews escape the death camps"

There is nothing metaphorical about the phrase, "her ancestor managed to help hundreds of Jews". It is not taken out of context. It was clearly meant quite literally. Of course you want to back away from the comment now, since it is false, like many of the other known false things you threw into the Schiavo debate, but that is your issue to deal with. As I said, you have no intellectual credability left. I was challenged by JB and you to find the quote, and I did.

There is a bigger lesson to draw from this. The anti-Terri forces, backed by the Catholic Church and anti-abortion terrorists like Terry Randell, tried to disrupt the healthy functioning of government, to impose their crazed and inhuman theocratic view of life on others. No facts or evidence of Terri's condition or of her wishes when she was alive could possibly be allowed to change their viewpoint. No autopsy, no behavior by Michael, no court testimony, no legal procedure, no scientific evidence could possibly be allowed in interfere with their religious view of life that they wanted to impose on others. For example, Larry said that during the fiasco that Terri said "I want to live" based on some nutcase who went in there to muddy up things. But now the autopsy proves that her brain state could not possibly have supported such a statement. To get back to more important things than Larry contradicting himself, are you, Larry, going to admit that Terri could not possibly have had the mental functioning to say "I want to live" and that this was also made up garbage?? Or does autopsy evidence also mean nothing to you?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Jeffrey
Jun 19 2005, 04:02 PM
The anti-Terri forces, backed by the Catholic Church

You mean pro-Terri forces, right?

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Jeffrey
Senior Carp
89 - No the anti-Terri forces, like the Catholic Church, the ones who wanted to violate her rights, her wishes, her marriage, and her bodily intergrity forcing her into a zombie-like existence against her wishes, just to enforce their totalitarian mindset on others.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
Jeffrey
Jun 19 2005, 04:12 PM
89 - No the anti-Terri forces, like the Catholic Church, the ones who wanted to violate her rights, her wishes, her marriage, and her bodily intergrity forcing her into a zombie-like existence against her wishes, just to enforce their totalitarian mindset on others.

Jeffrey's right IMHO.

I wish the state of Florida would allow this woman to rest in peace.
"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Jeffrey
Jun 19 2005, 04:12 PM
89 - No the anti-Terri forces, like the Catholic Church, the ones who wanted to violate her rights, her wishes, her marriage, and her bodily intergrity forcing her into a zombie-like existence against her wishes, just to enforce their totalitarian mindset on others.

Her rights? Her right to live? We support that.

Her wishes? No one knows what they were, but since she was a Catholic, we have a good idea of what they might have been!

Her marriage? The husband obviously didn't care for the marriage based on his actions.

Bodily integrity? We wanted more tests to be done to see if we could help her!

...not kill her, like you wanted.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jun 19 2005, 04:25 PM

...not kill her, like you wanted.

I don't see that anyone wanted to kill her. I think you're confusing *allowing her to die in peace* with murder.

"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Larry
Member Avatar
Mmmmmmm, pie!
Quote:
 
There is nothing metaphorical about the phrase, "her ancestor managed to help hundreds of Jews". It is not taken out of context. It was clearly meant quite literally. Of course you want to back away from the comment now, since it is false, like many of the other known false things you threw into the Schiavo debate, but that is your issue to deal with. As I said, you have no intellectual credability left. I was challenged by JB and you to find the quote, and I did.


Jeffrey, just a few things, and then you can go back to playing with yourself.

1. No, it wasn't meant literally, and a complete reading of what I said at the time shows it.
2. Anyone who writes the word "credability" should not question the credibility of anyone.
3. You didn't find the quote, I did. You just can't understand it.
4. As I've already said before, having no intellectual credibility yourself, your opinion on mine or anyone else's credibility is of no consequence.

Of the Pokatwat Tribe

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Her wishes? No one knows what they were


Not to dredge up the old argument, but many people thought that her wishes had been clearly expressed. You disagreed. Her parents disagreed. The courts that considered the issue (every single one of them, not just Judge Greer) found otherwise.

The people who testified that they'd heard her express her wishes, including Michael and several relatives, think she made her wishes clear.

You may be one of those who thinks that her wishes should have been expressed in writing. The Florida legislature disagrees. It doesn't require those statements to be made in writing, and it specifically chose not to amend the law to so require.

You disagree, but repeating the argument, months later, doesn't give it renewed vitality.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

justme
Jun 19 2005, 04:29 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 19 2005, 04:25 PM

...not kill her, like you wanted.

I don't see that anyone wanted to kill her. I think you're confusing *allowing her to die in peace* with murder.

I see what you're saying, but I would still call it *legal* murder, which it was.

The only reason she died is because her husband didn't want to feed her anymore.

She was killed.

Not with a knife or a gun, but by starving her to death.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jun 19 2005, 04:25 PM
but since she was a Catholic....

I understand your argument 89th but I have to disagree. As you know I'm a Catholic and I would've liked to have died in peace if I had been in her situation. Being Catholic has nothing to with being brain dead.

Why can't you and the state of Florida allow her to rest in peace? The only accomplishment I can see of continuing this argument is to argue that more people should have living wills.
"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

QuirtEvans
Jun 19 2005, 04:37 PM
Quote:
 
Her wishes? No one knows what they were


Not to dredge up the old argument, but many people thought that her wishes had been clearly expressed. You disagreed. Her parents disagreed. The courts that considered the issue (every single one of them, not just Judge Greer) found otherwise.

I agree the courts found in favor of Michael's testimony...but it's just like the Michael Jackson case.

Just because he was found not-guilty, doesn't mean he didn't do it.

The courts found that she likely said what Michael claims she did, but in all reality, we don't know what she said. Only what Michael and (two?) others said.

See what I mean? I think we see each other's points, but agree to disagree.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
justme
Member Avatar
HOLY CARP!!!
The 89th Key
Jun 19 2005, 04:41 PM


The only reason she died is because her husband didn't want to feed her anymore.


the only reason she died is because she wasn't able to live on her own. Unfortunately it took her a lot longer than most people.

You're saying she was killed. If you're saying Michael killed her you must also be saying he murdered her. Are you for charging him with murder?

"Men sway more towards hussies." G-D3
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

justme
Jun 19 2005, 04:41 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 19 2005, 04:25 PM
but since she was a Catholic....

I understand your argument 89th but I have to disagree. As you know I'm a Catholic and I would've liked to have died in peace if I had been in her situation. Being Catholic has nothing to with being brain dead.

Why can't you and the state of Florida allow her to rest in peace? The only accomplishment I can see of continuing this argument is to argue that more people should have living wills.

I understand what you're saying Peggy...I just meant that since she was a Catholic, that the Catholic stance on this issue states that she should have been kept alive.

And since no one really knows what she said, it's a good chance she would have wanted to be kept alive...a better chance than if she were an atheist or another religion, ya know?

And her fate is already sealed. Letting her rest in peace sounds nice, but it doesn't really mean anything, no offense.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

justme
Jun 19 2005, 04:45 PM
The 89th Key
Jun 19 2005, 04:41 PM


The only reason she died is because her husband didn't want to feed her anymore.


the only reason she died is because she wasn't able to live on her own. Unfortunately it took her a lot longer than most people.

You're saying she was killed. If you're saying Michael killed her you must also be saying he murdered her. Are you for charging him with murder?

MANY people are unable to live on their own...it doesn't mean we should kill them.

And I wouldn't be for charging him with murder since the courts said he was allowed to. He knew he could do it legally.

However, had he gone in there secretly and pulled the plug, I would be ALL for charging him with murder.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
The courts found that she likely said what Michael claims she did, but in all reality, we don't know what she said.


Then, unless you heard it yourself, how can you know anything? And even if you did, how can you know that your hearing isn't impaired?

If you head down that slippery slope, you can't ever know anything. Which would mean that, even with witnesses, you can never convict anyone of anything, because, "in all reality", you never really know for sure what happened.

Myself, for better or worse, I'm willing to rely on witnesses. Especially multiple, uncontradicted, credible witnesses.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

Quirt, you're a smart person.

You know very well there's a difference between:

actually hearing someone say something...

watching a videotape of someone saying something...

and someone claiming they heard something.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Florillo
Member
This whole thread makes me laugh. What a bunch of losers.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Thousands of people go to jail every day of the week in this country based on witness testimony. That's the way our justice system works. Either oral testimony can be sufficient evidence, or it can't. In this case, the Florida legislature has decided that oral testimony is sufficient evidence.

In any event, it's over. Let it go.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

My point is that there are levels of credible evidence. Videotape is more credible than witnesses, and so on.

We don't know what she really said, if she said anything at all.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
If we don't know what she really said, then we don't know whether anyone convicted based on witness testimony is really guilty. You can't have it both ways.

In any event, lots of luck convincing any state legislature, anywhere, that we can't know with sufficient certainty to make a decision if all we've got is oral testimony.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
The 89th Key
Member Avatar

I'm not saying oral testimony isn't reliable...it's just that it's not as reliable as other forms of evidence.

I'm known for not lying, believe it or not. A few years ago I made a commitment to myself to simply not lie about anything and I couldn't tell you the last time I've lied. A good habit I guess...but my point is I would be considered a VERY credible source in court. However just because I testified that I heard something wouldn't be rock solid evidence. Would you believe me? Probably...but would you know what I said was true? No.

Therefore, we don't know what Terri really said, if anything at all. See what I'm saying?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
JBryan
Member Avatar
I am the grey one
Jeffrey,

You can't just walk away from this one. I challenge you to show where I have ever "made up stuff" or apologize for attacking my integrity. I do not take such things lightly and l can honestly say that I have never played fast and loose with the facts. If you evade my challenge then you can assume that my estimation of your integrity will not be favorable.
"Any man who would make an X rated movie should be forced to take his daughter to see it". - John Wayne


There is a line we cross when we go from "I will believe it when I see it" to "I will see it when I believe it".


Henry II: I marvel at you after all these years. Still like a democratic drawbridge: going down for everybody.

Eleanor: At my age there's not much traffic anymore.

From The Lion in Winter.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
QuirtEvans
Member Avatar
I Owe It All To John D'Oh
Quote:
 
Therefore, we don't know what Terri really said, if anything at all. See what I'm saying?


Of course I do. But now distinguish that from the several thousand criminal defendants who go to jail every day of the week based on oral testimony of witnesses. We can't really know whether they did the crime, can we? So should they go free, if the evidence is limited to oral testimony?

Note: I am NOT saying that every criminal case is always decided on oral testimony alone. But, in a good number of cases ... ranging from felonies like armed robbery or date rape to traffic offenses like running a red light ... the only evidence available will be oral testimony of witnesses.

What you're saying is, we can never know for sure. In any he said/she said date rape case, we can never know what really happened. So, should we let every date rape defendant free, if the main evidence is based on oral testimony?

Of course not. We don't know for sure, but we're sure enough to send someone to prison for 20 years.

You're just cheesed about the Terri Schiavo case. It's an elementary principle of law that hard cases make bad law. So don't extrapolate general principles out of the Schiavo case, you'll only get yourself and everyone else in trouble.
It would be unwise to underestimate what large groups of ill-informed people acting together can achieve. -- John D'Oh, January 14, 2010.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
ZetaBoards - Free Forum Hosting
Create a free forum in seconds.
Learn More · Register Now
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · The New Coffee Room · Next Topic »
Add Reply