SillyDog701

[Antony]

Have you not considered that the husband is poisoning her?

What?
Michael has been suffered from having a vegetable for 15 years. Experts said she could not recover. A number of judges agreed logically that the tube should be removed.

[b]“Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination.â€

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

[quote="Antony"][b]“Anybody that thinks that she talks and responds, they need to have a mental health examination.â€

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Antony]

If someone does not have the ability to reason that there family could be poisoning his wife they have problems. Who knows maybe Michael Schiavo is a sociopath.

Michael did not put poison for his wife.

Why would he with-hold the medical records from the parents?

Please provide news links that states he withheld medical records from her parents.

In 1996 he with held them. http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html
He used his monopolistic power to attempt to stop them from seeing the truth.

I can't find such reference from news sites such as CNN or BBC News. Do you have such reports from news sites?

So do you suggest Michael should end his wife's life *in a fast manner*, just like ending a dog's life?

If you are going to inflict manslaughter on someone you should do it painlessly.

So you suggest him to end his wife in euthanasia, so you can call him a murderer?

OK those came from Michael Schiavo not anyone else.

Apparently, judges agree with that (she does not feel pain).

So how can you use someone who is in the middle of the case. Thats like having someone be a juror at there own trial.

Why risk causing such pain to a person when running test could solve it? Heres why he has wasted so much money on his attorneys fees (over $300,000 US) that he does not want to use any on her.

You can blaim her parents' resistance that he had to pay the attorney's fee.
BTW, may I have the source on where you got the figure from?

http://www.terrisfight.net

So her parents indirectly forced him to pay so much money to attorneys.

May I have source from news sites?

He also has stated he will not benefit from her death, there has been approximately $550,000 US removed from an account that had $900,000 US. That would leave him with $350,000 US, if he does not need to pay for her medical bills and his attorney then there is nothing legally stopping him from taking it.

Are you accusing him that money was the sole intention of ending his wife's life?

No I think his other reason is so he can look like a dutiful husband that was with her until the end. But the press has changed that for him and now he is doing it for the money. And he did not accept the $10,000,000 because the parents could sue for mental anguish.

When did press change that?
Every educated person knows that sort of tricks, and lawyer's dirty tricks.

I said If

Your "If" is biased and followed by assumptions led by extremists.
Why do you strongly believe Michael poisoned his wife? What's the reason for him to poison her?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Netscape/7.1 (ax) (CK-SillyDog)

[Ron Williams]

If someone does not have the ability to reason that there family could be poisoning his wife they have problems. Who knows maybe Michael Schiavo is a sociopath.

Michael did not put poison for his wife.

Wow you are psychic, we will see, the likelyhood that terri schiavo will die within one day is eminent.

No I think his other reason is so he can look like a dutiful husband that was with her until the end. But the press has changed that for him and now he is doing it fobecause the parents could sue for mental anguish.

When did prer the money. And he did not accept the $10,000,000 ss change that?
Every educated person knows that sort of tricks, and lawyer's dirty tricks.

The press has changed it because they have painted him as a horrible person.

I said If

Your "If" is biased and followed by assumptions led by extremists.

What about your Michael Jackson opinions, are you not caring about what happened to the child and denying it? Maybe its because it did not happen in Australia? Or maybe the it happens over there so much that you have become desensitized to it? Don't state that my opinions are biased because you can not come up with other reasonings for my statements. Understand the word first also. Biased: 'Favoring one attribute or characteristic more than another." You favor MJ's attributes enough to defend him!


Now back to the real reason. Terri Schiavo is given no physical therapy, no mental therapy, no rehabilitative therapy. She has amazingly been able to exhist with only what is required by a person. Food and water. It would be barbaric if we were to remove nutrition from a mentally challenged person. Michael Schaivo has not given her the chance to be rehabilitated and so she is unable to progress. Don't forget that even if your brain is not connected to you nerves other parts of you body would still spasm from the pain since you have nerves in your spine which cause your reflexes. Removing nutrition from a person whoms only other problem is not being able to communicate proves that things need to change and that this is why judges get killed. They mess with peoples lives and don't show and remorse or anything else.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Antony]

If someone does not have the ability to reason that there family could be poisoning his wife they have problems. Who knows maybe Michael Schiavo is a sociopath.

Michael did not put poison for his wife.

Wow you are psychic, we will see, the likelyhood that terri schiavo will die within one day is eminent.

There's no evidence that Michael Schiavo poisoned his wife. Only conspiracies from biased sites trying to flame down Michael Schiavo.

You haven't delivered any articles from news source.

No I think his other reason is so he can look like a dutiful husband that was with her until the end. But the press has changed that for him and now he is doing it fobecause the parents could sue for mental anguish.

When did prer the money. And he did not accept the $10,000,000 ss change that?
Every educated person knows that sort of tricks, and lawyer's dirty tricks.

The press has changed it because they have painted him as a horrible person.

From the biased website you keep mentioning?

I said If

Your "If" is biased and followed by assumptions led by extremists.

What about your Michael Jackson opinions, are you not caring about what happened to the child and denying it? Maybe its because it did not happen in Australia? Or maybe the it happens over there so much that you have become desensitized to it?

For Michael Jackson's thread, I post excerpts or quotes from news article, then followed by my opinion. You did not provide any direct links or quotes from news media.

You've been warned on attacking me.

Don't state that my opinions are biased because you can not come up with other reasonings for my statements.

I provided my reasons in first page of this thread. You haven't responded to most of them. Now you have something new, assuming that he poisoned his wife. Where did that come from?

And attacking on letting her "starving" while letting a dog starving is not allowed? And I responded that your analogy was very bad.

I've been replying with reasoning and evidence (from news articles), unlike you. Shall I follow your posting style without backups? You've been brain-washed.

You've been warned on attacking me.

Understand the word first also. Biased: 'Favoring one attribute or characteristic more than another." You favor MJ's attributes enough to defend him!

For Michael Jackson's thread, I post excerpts or quotes from news article, then followed by my opinion. You did not provide any direct links or quotes from news media.

You've been warned on attacking me.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

You've been brain-washed.

You've been warned on attacking me.

Understand the word first also. Biased: 'Favoring one attribute or characteristic more than another." You favor MJ's attributes enough to defend him!

For Michael Jackson's thread, I post excerpts or quotes from news article, then followed by my opinion. You did not provide any direct links or quotes from news media.

You've been warned on attacking me.

Lets see you can state that I am attacking you when you say that I am brain washed. So thats what the wierd people came to my house for. No if I state my opinion then suddenly I am attacking you. You have the same idiosyncrocy of a child. What next you will say I'm going to tell my mom, or maybe call the cops on me. I will not answer your statements because they have NOTHING to do with terri schiavo. I simply want to state that denying someone food and water because they have no cognitive abilities is wrong. Every mentally challenged person should not be fed because they can not communicate with us? Now if you want to trample on my opinion and not approach a subject with an open mind it is extremely rude to do this. Atleast listen to the whole story. You know fox news and CNN's shows are not put online so I can not show you these. Thats why now are you happy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Antony]

Lets see you can state that I am attacking you when you say that I am brain washed.

I did say if I follow your posting style without justifying. READ the sentence before that.

No if I state my opinion then suddenly I am attacking you.

You started talking on me first, and you had no backups.

I simply want to state that denying someone food and water because they have no cognitive abilities is wrong. Every mentally challenged person should not be fed because they can not communicate with us?

Feeding someone is one issue, however, the importance of this case is ... Michael Schiavo is suffering as well, and terminating the a vegetable's life seems to be a good solution for Michael, medical resource and Terri herself.

Atleast listen to the whole story.

I read the whole article.

You know fox news and CNN's shows are not put online so I can not show you these.

Could that be such reputable media do not have news article in your favour? If that is the case, what sort of articles provided in the website you linked.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

If someone does not have the ability to reason that there family could be poisoning his wife they have problems. Who knows maybe Michael Schiavo is a sociopath.

Michael did not put poison for his wife.

Wow you are psychic, we will see, the likelyhood that terri schiavo will die within one day is eminent.

There's no evidence that Michael Schiavo poisoned his wife. Only conspiracies from biased sites trying to flame down Michael Schiavo.

You haven't delivered any articles from news source.

Here is your news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101458,00.html

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Antony]

Here is your news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101458,00.html

That's the transcript clearly biased to one side.
Let's check the contradiction in that transcript.
Sean Hannity, co-host:
A 1990 heart attack left Terri Schiavo (search) with severe brain damage. Since then a legal battle has raged over whether or not to keep her alive. On October 15 her feeding tube was removed, according to her husband's wishes.
[...]
Dr. William Hammesfahr, Neurologist:
Absolutely. She is not in a coma. She did not have a heart attack. She is not in a coma presently. She absolutely can be rehabilitated. There's no question about that.

Further on, not to live artificially was Terri's wishes, NOT her husband's wishes. It was the Schindler family refusing to accept that their daughter had an heard attack, refusing to let go their daughter.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Antony]

Euthanasia of a dog last minutes (I have had to put enough down) not 5 days and possibly 6.

You might want to check out USATODAY's news report, Schiavo unlikely to experience pain, neurologists say
neurologists on Wednesday said that based on court findings of her condition, her body gradually will shut down in a painless process that will lead to death.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[Ron Williams]

Here is your news source http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,101458,00.html

That's the transcript clearly biased to one side.
Let's check the contradiction in that transcript.
Sean Hannity, co-host:
A 1990 heart attack left Terri Schiavo (search) with severe brain damage. Since then a legal battle has raged over whether or not to keep her alive. On October 15 her feeding tube was removed, according to her husband's wishes.
[...]
Dr. William Hammesfahr, Neurologist:
Absolutely. She is not in a coma. She did not have a heart attack. She is not in a coma presently. She absolutely can be rehabilitated. There's no question about that.

Further on, not to live artificially was Terri's wishes, NOT her husband's wishes. It was the Schindler family refusing to accept that their daughter had an heard attack, refusing to let go their daughter.

Fox News is a reputable news source. You will critisize all reasonings for my beliefs because you can not even think that you are wrong.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050317 Firefox/1.0.2

[Antony]

Up to date (based on BBC News)
23 Mar 2005: Appeals court backs federal ruling
24 Mar 2005: US Supreme Court refuses appeal

A judge in Florida has rejected an effort by the state authorities to take temporary custody of brain-damaged Terri Schiavo.

Terri Schiavo suffered brain damage in 1990 when her heart stopped briefly because of a chemical imbalance believed to have been brought on by an eating disorder.

Fox News is a reputable news source. You will critisize all reasonings for my beliefs because you can not even think that you are wrong.

Am I not allowed to point out the contradiction I found and correct the things?
Most news reports mention Terri Schiavo as "brain-damaged" woman, even in the beginning of that Fox News transcript. They simple need to provide lots more points to convince people Terri Schiavo was not "brain-damaged".

I never said Fox News is not a reputable news source, but I am not allowed to comment not in your favour?

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; PPC Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/125.5.7 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/125.12

[jsjag]

I heard recently that the Supreme Court has elected to not reinsert the feeding tube.

Personally, I believe that she should probably be put out of this anyway. After staying in a coma for so many years,

Time for a learning curve......SHE is NOT in a coma. There is a big, big difference.

Just like you and I Terri wakes up in the morning and goes to bed at night. Basically she is a disabled person, period. Nobody killed Chris Reeves and he needed a ventilator or he would have died.

She is not terminal so why the H*LL is she in a hospice.

Two years ago I had a relative that dropped his motorcycle and used his (non helmeted) head to take out a mail box post. The guys brain swelled, they had to remove bone to allow swelling, he was in a coma and did not survive. He was not in any type of vegitative state, his brain was gone. That is not the case of Terri.

I don't know but something smells like bad fish in the entire episode. If only Terri had left a Living Will we wouldn't need to rely on the word of her estranged spouse. I say estranged because he has a new common law wife and kids sooooo he really isn't terri's husband anyore. I think there are laws about polygamy?

Anyone with children knows how terrible this is on the parents. They must watch their child be starved to death and to die of dehydration. You die quicker first from lack of water than food. The parents can not even place a wet towel to the dry and cracked lips of their child. Why not you may ask? There is a uniformed policeman in the room to stop them. A paid government employee stopping you from helping your child. Too painful for me to even think about.

I followed this case a long time before the major media picked it up and now the BS is flowing. Like the ABC poll that left people under the impression that she is on life support. There is a guy I know that needs alternative feeding because he had throat cancer. Should the State and courts kill him?

No longer did ancient Rome have anything over us......we are finally exactly like them. The old and infirm are of no use so they should die.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319

[jsjag]

It's a serious problem for her husband. Her husband has been suffering from this for 15 years. Terri's live is not to be decided by politicians, and definitely NOT the religions group (extremists).
Respect her life, respect her wish, and don't waste medical resources.
Michael is fighting for Terri's right to die.


Michael has been suffered for being married to a woman who can't talk, who can't express herself. Terri is in persistent vegetative state (PVS), and the courts have agreed.

Number one. "What is a religious extremist"? Is that the opposite of liberal extremist?

So you are one of those that don't understand the Constitution because Judges are not the ones to make law. So if let's say someday the courts decide to "make" it law that non-productive elderly people can be put to sleep...that's ok with you?

Ok....here's one for you. When my ole dog gets to urinating on the floor because her kidneys are gone......I'll just starve her to death. How long would that one fly with you? If I am correctly reading the tone of your post, you'd have the "court" on my butt in a minute.

Michael suffering!?!?!?! Give me break. I've followed this case for 5 years and he isn't suffering. He has been disallowing rehab treatments and has had one thing o his mind, to have Terri die.

There are a lot of disabled people in the world that are like Terri. The only difference e is how they get their food. So if a person can't feed themselves and are fully and totally disabled it is OK with you to starve them? How do the doctors know if death by starvation hurts. Remember today's medical thoughts are in the future considered barbaric. Have you ever looked at a surgeons bag from the year 1850? Saws, hammers and other nightmarish looking instruments. But that was considered state of the art in 1850.

Imagine if in the future we find out that these people that we determine are in a vegetative state were much more aware than we, at this time, ever knew. How barbaric we will look. You don't know, I don't know and the Dr's don’t know.....so as for me, I ere on the side of life. Without a written document that is the only way.

I do docs for clients and believe me, if your last wishes aren't in written form, with your signature, a signed witness and seal are not on it I don't believe it. That is what law and your final wishes are about not the hear say of an estranged husband.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319

[jsjag]

Can anyone tell me why Terri has been in a hospice for so long? I've had friends with AIDS go to the hospice to die, I've had relatives with cancer go to a hospice to die but never knew anyone that wasn't terminal going to a hospice.

Someone that isn't terminal in a hospice kind of negates what a hospice is all about. A hospice is not a nursing home or a rehab facility. A hospice is a place go to die with dignity, when you are terminal and your time has come to die.

What's up with Terri in a hospice.

I have clients with land disputes that have a better investigative trail than Terri's case. I am very confused as to why there has never, ever been an investigation into the standing of her husbands guardianship. Can it be proven he did without rehab treatments? Can it be proven he was not working in Terri's best interest? Where is the investigative media?

If the facts on this site are correct, http://www.terrisfight.org/timeline.html , I think the husband has neglected his duty as guardian. He chooses a nursing home instead of a rehab facility. That's bad.....very, very bad.

UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.7.6) Gecko/20050319