Terri Schindler-Schiavo will be starved to death, beginning today.

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Catholic : One Thread

Terri Schindler-Schiavo is scheduled to have her feeding tube removed on October 15th at 2 P.M.

Terri, age 39, is disabled. She is not in a coma, not in a persistent vegetative state. She is aware of her surroundings and has communicated that she does not want to be starved to death.

"The Federal Court said [Friday, October 10th] it would not intervene in the scheduled starving to death of Terri Schiavo due to begin this Wednesday. If you want to help her, here is contact information for Gov. Bush, who filed a brief with the court to save Terri and was rejected.

Please call on Governor Jeb Bush to use his executive power to intervene to save Terri's life.

If you want to help her, here is contact information for Gov. Bush, who filed a brief with the court to save Terri and was rejected."

http://terrisfight.org

jeb@jeb.org, jeb.bush@myflorida.com Ph:(850) 488-7146 and (850) 488-4441 Fax:(850)487-0801

oreilly@foxnews.com

Please pray and act, to save Terri's life.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flowerofthehour@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003

Answers

What has the local Bishop said about it? Just curious.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 15, 2003.

Wrote the governor last week. will call again today.

-- Mary (mercy@hope.com), October 15, 2003.

The bishop of Roman Catholic Diocese of St. Petersburg, Bishop Lynch, has issued a statement: Statement of Bishop Robert N. Lynch concerning the Terri Schiavo case on August 12th of this year.

It says, in part:
Terri Schiavo’s case is especially difficult because her actual medical situation is in dispute. The court has determined based on the medical evidence which was presented to it that she is in a “persistent or permanent vegetative state,” commonly referred to as PVS. Her husband agrees with this. Her parents and other family members do not. Physicians who have examined her also have opposing opinions. It is currently assumed that Terri cannot swallow food naturally. All agree, however, that there is extensive and permanent damage to her brain but it is not clear whether the medically assisted nutrition and hydration is delaying her dying process to no avail, is unreasonably burdensome for her, and contrary to what she would wish if she could tell us.
and
In these most difficult cases, our Church teaching is that there should be a presumption in favor of providing medically assisted nutrition and hydration to all patients as long as it is of sufficient benefit to outweigh the burdens involved to the patient.

If Terri’s feeding tube is removed, it will undoubtedly be followed by her death. If it were to be removed because the nutrition which she receives from it is of no use to her, or because it is unreasonably burdensome for her and her family or her caregivers, it could be seen as permissible. But if it were to be removed simply because she is not dying quickly enough and some believe she would be better off because of her low quality of life, this would be wrong.
and
This situation is tragic. I strongly recommend that

1. in the presence of so much uncertainty and dispute about her actual physical state, all parties pursue a clearer understanding of her actual physical condition;

2. Terri’s family be allowed to attempt a medical protocol which they feel would improve her condition;

3. Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition. This is a much harder case than those who use facile language might know.


-- Lurker (lurker@mailinator.com), October 15, 2003.

Today is Terri's saint's day; the feast of Saint Theresa of Avila. Let us all pray to her for extraordinary intercession for the life of the sick girl. Lord Jesus Christ, by the holy intercession of your spouse Theresa, have mercy on Terri Schindler-Schiavo! Restore her to life and health, Most Sacred Heart of Jesus. Amen.

-- eugene c. chavez (loschavez@pacbell.net), October 15, 2003.

The court has determined based on the medical evidence which was presented to it that she is in a “persistent or permanent vegetative state,”

This sounds a little bit different than the initial post. FWIW, having seen enough people in similar situations, my living will clearly states that in such a situation no artificial means are to be used prolong my life. (Fortunately my wife has the training and similar belief to make this decision too) It's not always a cake-walk keeping brain dead people alive, and there are times to let nature take its course. In any event, the final decision can best be made by the people who know her and are familiar with her, and not by me who's seen a few lines about her here.

How about if we say a prayer that the right decision is being made?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 15, 2003.



Jmj

If anyone wants to know all the facts about this case (which I have been following for months), and if anyone wants to see a photo of the woman who is being murdered -- all of which will prove how sick her husband is and how wrong the judge is -- click here.

I just finished calling all of the following, leaving messages or even speaking to real people. Please do the same today or tomorrow:

Governor Jeb Bush ... 1-850-488-7146 or 1-850-488-4441

Bishop Robert Lynch (who has still not fully grasped the situation, as evidenced by what he said, above) ... 1-727-344-1611

President G. W. Bush ... 1-202-456-1414

Attorney General John Ashcroft ... 1-202-514-2001

U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division ... 1-202-514-2151

U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops ... 202-541-3000

Thank you.
John
PS: I am not going to debate the following, but I just want to mention that the American Life League (Judie Brown, associated orthodox Catholic theologians, associated medical experts, et al) urges all pro-life people NOT to sign a typical "Living Will." These documents leave too much room for various people to do things that the signer would not want to have done (or to omit doing things that the signer would want to have done). No practicing Catholic can ever sign a document that says that "no artificial means are to be used prolong my life" unless the signer makes an exception for nutrition and hydration. These are not considered the kind of optional, extraordinary actions that can be waived, for (even if artificially administered), food and water are required, ordinary actions (lest one be guilty of suicide). For more information about what a Catholic should do, please read this page at the American Life League site, and then contact A.L.L. to read about the pro-life alternative, which they call a "Loving Will."

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.


American Life League is one of several groups leading the effort to save the life of Terrie Schiavo.
To contact A.L.L. about the Loving Will, use any of four methods:

1. e-mail Judie at jbrown@all.org
2. write to
American Life League
P.O. Box 1350
Stafford, VA 22555
3. phone 540-659-4171
4. fax 540-659-2586

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 15, 2003.


I have been following this case, as well. According to pictures and videotapes, Terri is not 'comatose' or 'vegetative' as CNN and other media monsters would have you believe. Her husband is living with another woman right now, actually engaged, and cannot marry until she is dead. (I believe he wants a Catholic wedding.) He will not let her parents visit her unless he or one of his representatives are present. Her parents have asked to be given the responsibility of primary caregivers, but Terry's husband would not relinquish this, and yet, he still wants to remove her feeding tube. He wants nothing more than to be rid of her.

Nutrition and hydration are NOT extraordinary means of life support. They are necessary for everyday life. To die a death due to starvation and/or dehydration is extremely slow and painful. No one, no matter how disabled, should be denied those basic tenets of life. This is a crystal clear case of euthanasia.

Terry really needs our prayers right now. And her husband needs them even more.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 15, 2003.


When you pray, take special aim at the husband.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 16, 2003.

From what I read here, and the links John provided, this is very sad. The question is that who has the final right to decide when the ill person can't? When do the parents' rights end, and the spouse's begin? Why couldn't he have just divorced her (albeit without her consent) if her other family members were willing to care for her (and that way she could have been their dependent)?

I'm with Frank on this--pray for the right decision.

I'm also curious as to why there wasn't a "loving will" link, without having to contact the organization. I do think that they push advance directives on you too much at the hospital, even when going in for non-life-threatening procedures (like childbirth). 'Way too depressing.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 16, 2003.



Hi, GT.

I suspect that there is some kind of legal restriction involved in A.L.L.'s not publishing the Loving Will online. It is not like A.L.L. to hold anything back unless it is absolutely necessary. (I have been in touch with their almost-no-holds-barred pro-life work for more than 15 years.) Here is more on this subject at their site and EWTN's (by a fantastic A.L.L. employee):

Link 1

Link 2 (If that doesn't work because the EWTN site is down, try this ).

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 16, 2003.


["Death watch" update from a Florida prolifer (received by me from a reliable source via e-mail):]

... I just returned from the fourth night of the vigil. Terrie's family was there and many supporters. Terrie is running a fever. Her father was telling us that Terrie's face is very red and hot. He said that a "death squad" nurse was sitting on a chair reading a book while Terri was suffering. Her father cried as he was telling us the situation. He told the nurse that Terri had a high fever and to help her - the nurse said nothing and continued reading her book. He wondered how anyone could be so heartless.

Around midnight, a K-9 patrol car showed up. The dogs were barking loudly in the car. ... Terrie's father said that [anti-life] attorney George Felos is paying for the police to guard the hospice [lest pro-lifers "abduct" Terrie]. Each night there are about 20 police men and woman guarding hospice, plus a K-9 unit. ... The funds to pay for the police come directly from the trust fund that was established for Terrie's rehab and care.

This afternoon, a man came to the vigil with a box of 24 roses. the roses were placed near a large color photo of Terrie and her mother. There is a novena to St. Therese (Little Flower) in which [one prays] 24 Glory Be's. We prayed this novena last week on the eve of the federal court hearing.

Please continue praying for Terri and her family. The family is suffering so much.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.


GT,

Why couldn't he have just divorced her (albeit without her consent) if her other family members were willing to care for her

I'm sure he could have. The big question though is why is he doing what he is? If he is doing what he is from some sinister motive, he will be justly repaid by the Lord, OTOH, if he is sincerely trying to do what he felt is what her wishes were, he's probably not divorcing her to *retain* control of the situation and make sure that her wishes are carried out. Again, I can't say, but those seem like two possibilities.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 17, 2003.


Once she is gone, he will receive all the life insurance money, plus all the money won from malpractice suits that have been placed in trusts for her care. Big motive.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 17, 2003.

Frank, with an understanding of the FACTS, the latter is laughable. Give me a break. The guy has a "girlfriend" and has TWO kids with her (one on it's way). The guys a jerk. No wonder she hasn't recovered. Maybe if he took her out once and a while to smell the fresh air. Or to see the sunset. Or the stars at night. Maybe if he was by her side, she'd have more of a will to live.

He's got it right probably. She most likely WANTS to die. But it isn't because she's suffering due to brain damage. She's suffering from a broken heart. The guy has NO love for his wife. If he did, he wouldn't have picked this other lady out and had children with her. Obviously he wasn't expecting her to recover. And if she did? Oh, then what. Then he'd stay with his wife? Or do you think he'd divorce her then. He'd be in a pretty sticky situation if she were to recover. He doesn't want her recovery!

He needs her dead, and he'll see to it no matter what.

Uh, it turns my stomach inside out!

Freak accident my ... I hope they research her "husband". I'll bet any money that he set her up to die. It's all fishy. Girlfriend and kids, while he's still married! And he "loves" her now enough to "not want to see her suffer". More like he doesn't want her to see him and his lover, which would make her suffer.

Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!

God forgive us!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 17, 2003.



The number I gave above for American Life League (a non-profit organization run by Catholics) is not toll-free. If you wish to use a toll-free number at which you can request a "Loving Will" package (forms, documents, brochure), here it is: 1-866-538-5483

They have had so many requests that there is now a two-week waiting list. Don't let that bother you, please.

Just got this info over the phone: The reason that the package is not shown on the Internet is that they are legally obligated [I don't know why] to give away the packages for free, and their practice is to place items online only when they are being sold (for reimbursement of cost, not for profit).

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.


John, I'm surprised that these aren't available at the parish level....

The links were very good, but it really all comes down to the people that the ill person is depending upon to carry out his/her wishes. You can have it down on paper, but if someone ignores it, or twists the meaning to suit themselves, you're still dead and can't do anything about it....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 17, 2003.


Jmj
GT,
That's why a person should have pro-life doctors as her regular physicians when in good health. And they should try to make sure that she is treated in a Catholic hospital -- or that her case is being carefully observed, in a non-Catholic hospital, by a sympathetic pastor who is aware of the terms of the "Loving Will" and will fight for the sick person's rights and wishes.
I realize that this set-up is not "fool-proof," but it makes things more likely to be done properly than other set-ups (or leaving things to chance).
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.

John, we can't always choose where we're going to fall ill, or even who is going to treat us at the time. You can carry something with you, but someone can always toss it out, or not read it.

One of the links told about doctors flat out ignoring advance directives, and they do, probably both ways--many doctors will do anything to prolong life. The people best able to fight for an ill person's rights are those who love him/her, and in this case the husband apparently doesn't, which is sad. But would people be so outraged if he were not involved with this other woman?

A lot of us have ideas of what we want or don't want done in order to prolong life. What if a heart patient decides he won't take his medicine because he's an ornery (but loveable) person who doesn't want to be tied down to medicine (or thinks medicine is a sign of weakness)? Is he committing suicide? I don't think so. Not wanting a feed tube could well fall into the same category, but everyone is different, which makes writing any kind of advance directive very difficult indeed.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 17, 2003.


Hello, GT.

You wrote: "John, we can't always choose where we're going to fall ill, or even who is going to treat us at the time. You can carry something with you, but someone can always toss it out, or not read it."

Well, come on! Everybody knows that. What I was expressing was general principles to follow as much as one can. Things will then turn out right for the great majority -- with the minority falling into the kinds of unexpected situations you describe.

You ended with: "What if a heart patient decides he won't take his medicine because he's an ornery (but loveable) person who doesn't want to be tied down to medicine (or thinks medicine is a sign of weakness)? Is he committing suicide? I don't think so. Not wanting a feed tube could well fall into the same category, but everyone is different, which makes writing any kind of advance directive very difficult indeed."

I believe that what you are saying is incorrect, according to Catholic teaching. The Church has already (more than once) explained what is permissible (e.g., turning down extraordinary care that is burdensome) and what is required (e.g., nutrition and hydration until it is of no benefit or counterproductive). Turning down an optional treatment is never suicidal, while turning down all food is suicidal. But, heck. It is incorrect to think that each of us has to -- or even has the right to -- try to figure these things out for him/herself from scratch. It is also incorrect to think that (licitly) some of us may decide to go one way (e.g., accepting nutrition) while others may go in a radically different direction (e.g., rejecting nutrition). There already exists a doctrine on this subject -- to which we owe our assent. With a little effort, anyone should be able to find the actual words that the Church has used to teach about these things.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 17, 2003.


Please let Gov. Jeb Bush know that we want him to let Terri live and intervine to start her feeding tube again. I am an occupational therapist and have worked with many people through the years that have not had the responses that Terri has and they have made it through therapy, etc. Please give her a chance. If you can stop a prisoner from the death sentence, why can't you stop Terri from her death sentence!???! Please pass this on the Gov. Jeb Bush or let me know how to do it - God please hear our heart cries! Love, Merry

-- Merry Ann Harmon-Penna (merryot@juno.com), October 17, 2003.

Scroll up, Merry Ann, and you will find various phone numbers you can call to pass along your important words -- including Gov. Bush's office. (Can't quite figure out how you missed them!)
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 18, 2003.

This is very sad; please see this article. It's easier to see in this particular case how the anti-life elements of our society come all the way ultimately to an attack on our Catholic Sacraments.

Let's petition the Virgin Mother of God to part the enemies of life like the Red Sea and allow this poor woman the reception of the Sacraments, and to give the grace to those administering to her to press their cause despite obstacles.

I'm not sure if I've ever seen a more clear cut case of absolute selfishness in my entire life as I have in this case. Scarey.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), October 19, 2003.


I can agree with Bishop Lynch's August statement, until he warns us against: "3. Excessive rhetoric like the use of “murder” or the designation of the trial judge or appellate judges as “murderers” not be used by anyone from our Judeo-Christian tradition."

Is it not obvious to us all, that when an innocent human being is starved to death, just because of her physical disability, that a MURDER is occuring? Gimme a break, your Excellency. (With all due respect.)

Although, I must say, he did issue this statement back in August, and perhaps at that time, he never thought it would come to this...

However, we cannot soft-peddle issues of life and death. When we do, the pro-death forces march all over us like a bunch of doormats. Look at what they have done to this disabled woman in Florida.

The elderly in Florida should be feeling a little nervous right now, knowing how little their judges value human life...

Dear Lord, Look down upon your servant, Terri, with mercy. Help us to know how we can help her. Have mercy on this nation of ours! Lord Jesus, come to our aid.

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), October 20, 2003.


If this holds up, it looks like the feeding tubes will be reinserted....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=534&e=1&u=/ap/20031021/ ap_on_re_us/comatose_woman

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 20, 2003.


A bill was just passed in the House giving the Governor the power to have her feeding tube reinserted. Let us pray that he does so. He has 15 days to act, if I read that right.

Let me repeat, nutrition and hydration are NOT extraordinary means of life support. They are essentials to everyday life. To withhold these is to condemn someone to death, leaving God out of the picture. Besides the fact that death from starvation and dehydration are extremely painful deaths.

Dear Mother of God, please intervene in this case.

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 21, 2003.


The above URL has an improper space (blank character) in it. Here is a link.

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 21, 2003.

Her Bishop says that starving brain damaged people to death is an individual decision to be made by the family.

Remember, where the local Bishop is, there is the Church. She owes him her obedience, and should humbly submit to death.

That's the line of reasoning you Novus Ordos propose, is it

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 21, 2003.


The Florida senate still has to pass the bill as well.

Isabel,

"Let me repeat, nutrition and hydration are NOT extraordinary means of life support."

That is true. What is perhaps at issue is that the METHOD to provide food and water is extraordinary, and that I think is within a person's right to decide whether he/she wants it done or not, because it isn't natural. We're not talking mashing any food with a fork and mixing it with water here, so that she can swallow it more easily, we're talking medical equipment necessary and special liquid food.

Don't misunderstand me here. From what I've read there seem to be wildly conflicting reports about whether this poor woman is truly in a PVS, or can be helped to a far better medical condition than she is in now. That is the real issue that needs to be resolved before anything else is done.

And absent anything in writing, you need to err on the side of life.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 21, 2003.


Thanks John, for fixing the link.

Jake, the trouble with the Bishop's statement is that it avoids saying who has "more" right as family members to decide these things. Unless I am mistaken, once you get married, your spouse is "first next of kin", followed by children, then parents, according to law.

The problem is that the family is at odds. If they had been in agreement one way or the other, no one would be talking about it, but they're not. Should blood be thicker than marriage in these cases? And what if there were adult children who could conceiveably weigh in on this decision?

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 21, 2003.


Jake, the trouble with the Bishop's statement is that it avoids saying who has "more" right as family members to decide these things.

The problem with it is that it fails to condemn the practice of starving brain damaged people to death. It's soft-boiled. It's soft. It's meaningless. It's a grave sin of omission that cries out for vengeance.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 21, 2003.


Aye, but how does this situation really differ from abortion? Simply put, you have Terri, like an unborn child, who cannot speak for herself. You have her husband who is a family member (like the mother of the unborn child) who wants to kill her. You have Terri's parents and family (like Catholic Pro-lifers) who want Terri to keep living and are begging for the right to speak and act for Terri who can't.

You have the Bishop (like those horrible pro-"choicers") who is saying that it should all be determined by a case-by-case basis, and should be left up to the family (the pregnant mother) to decide if Terri lives or dies.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), October 21, 2003.


Sheesh! You guys are slamming the Bishop for a statement he made many days before the actual insident. I'm sure he now has much more info available to him on the issue at hand.

Give him a break. He is a VICAR of Christ. Yet, he is also a human.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 21, 2003.


You guys are slamming the Bishop for a statement he made many days before the actual insident.

He made it six days ago.

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 21, 2003.


Jake H.

Does it matter that he has more info now than he had before, if that is the case? Does starving someone to death become any less reprehensible because of the amount of information one has?

GT.

There are babies (even toddlers) that have to be put on feeding tubes, because they cannot swallow on their own. Since you consider this an extraordinary means, would it be OK to deny that nutrition to that child and let it die? Would you let this happen to your child?

-- Isabel (joejoe1REMOVE@msn.com), October 21, 2003.


No, the issue is whether this poor woman is truly brain-damaged beyond the point of medical help. And what of those who choose to donate their organs if they are found to be brain-dead--is that wrong, and why?

I don't think the husband has conclusively established that she cannot be helped with proper treatment, and from what I've read, it seems that he has done everything he could to prevent doctors from treating her. Further, there was an article in WorldNet Daily supposedly saying that his lawyers would not let a priest give her some of the Communion Wafer. I bet the husband is scared that once she receives Communion, there will be a miraculous recovery, or she will at least be able to speak clearly, and that will be the end of his inheritance plans.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 21, 2003.


Isabel, are you talking about a child who is also brain dead and on life support, or ? I think of the little boy who's parents donated his organs when he was brain-damaged in an accident--his sacrifice saved the lives of others.

Terri's parents say she responds--her husband doesn't. Why hasn't there been a court-documented 7/24 video-recorded watch on this woman with doctors/medical personnel present, as well as the family for say a month? It sounds like the judges were only listening to doctors, and didn't even visit her.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 21, 2003.


"whose" instead of "who's"....

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 21, 2003.

The trouble here is that this guy looks to be the most odious person imaginable, and may NOT be following his wife's wishes, who knows? Would If I was in her shoes would I want my children's inheritance drained, my wife to lose the house, etc. to pay for my ongoing brain- dead state? No. OTOH, would I want some deadbeat trying to off me to live in the Bahamas? No. That's why you make a will, and discuss everything with your whole family NOW so this type of thing doesn't happen TOMORROW. In this decision though forget about her husband AND her parents, and try and think what she would want. That's what is important. Hasn't she been like this for over almost 13 YEARS? When is it time to say "enough is enough" and let her meet the Lord? Is it really that bad to give her rest and have all her tears wiped away?

Also, I don't think a non-responsive person on a feeding tube is "nothing". Even at her young age she's been in and out of the hospital, which should be proof enough this is going to need to be managed over the next years, and it won't be any easier 30 years from now when she's 70. These have to be maintained, changed occasionally, can get infected, get aspiration pneumonia, urosepsis, all sorts of stuff. Are all these "incidentals" also apart of "just" feeding her, or if she develops a serious pneumonia and needs IV antibiotics is it then time to let her go? It's too bad there's money involved, and people are afraid he's trying to kill her for personal gain, if not, people would likely let her go. From my own experience being hospitalized, I know if I was in her shoes, long before 13 years of lying there, I'd want my wife to give me the last rites again, and let me meet my maker.

Frank

P.S. One of the "right to die" arguments that really stuck with me was that of fairness. If someone is on a ventilator, they have the right to say "no" to *extraordinary* means to prolong their life, but someone with a less-invasive disease does not. That is not fair to those not needing a ventilator, therefore everyone should have (or not have) the right to end treatment on an equal basis.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.


Everyone DOES have equal rights to end their treatment. But for people with less serious diseases, ending their treatment will not kill them.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 21, 2003.

"When is it time to say "enough is enough" and let her meet the Lord? Is it really that bad to give her rest and have all her tears wiped away?"

Frank,

you usually have some pretty good stuff to say. But I've found as of late that you are really being overcome by the culture of death.

It really isn't a matter of what she wants either! If she is alive, then EVEN if she wants to die, one cannot let her. The Church is against suicide, which is what you are suggesting. Many people WANT to die (whether in a similar situation, worse, or better). It is a matter of what God wants.

You state, "...and let her meet the Lord.", but we have NO idea what state her soul is at. In FACT, in letting her die pre-maturely, we might actually be sending her to hell. We have no idea what state her mind is in. Lust, Envy, Anger, etc. these are all things that don't require physical actions.

For the Love of God, no one really WANTS to die. If one says that they do, then they are seriously confused about the purpose of life. It isn't to serve ourselves. It isn't to be satisfied! It is to server and to satisfy OTHERS. Life is to be lived for the Glory of God, not ourselves. This is what Terri's husband is doing. And he would like to "off" the one person who may be living for the Glory of God!

We cannot presume to know that Terri would be better off.

And I laugh at the idea of a "living will". If you would honeslty consider allowing your wife or family to kill you, then there is something wrong. You are subscribing the the culture of death.

One cannot make a descision about "if" they were in a situation. You can't know until you're there! Say you make a "living will" and request to be killed if you are on life support, or in Terri's case - feeding tube. Now, say that an accident DOES happen and you end up in that state. And in that state you are at piece. True piece because you are attaching yourself to Christ's Cross and uniting yourself with him in his suffering. Lets say, once in that state, then, you wish to stay in that state for the Glory of God (because now that you are in this situation, you know what it is like). Ooops! Your family has a paper that states you'd rather die. And now there is NOTHING you can do!

I'd rather live out the rest of my life suffering a misserable and horible death, then to have the plug pulled a moment to soon, and lose the chance at a NUMBER of ways to glorify God (not to mention if you are in a state of unrepented sin when the plug is pulled).

It is sad that we consider a "living will". It is even worse to think that doctors, et al, would ASSume we would want to die. It's sad we really do NEED one to state that we WANT to live. In this cultur of death, we have to say we want to live, not the other way around!

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 21, 2003.


Jake H.,

you usually have some pretty good stuff to say. But I've found as of late that you are really being overcome by the culture of death.

No, not in the least. I have professionally been around the dying for a long time. I've seen people kept alive for YEARS who were totally unresponsive, and remained that way. It isn't always a pretty sight, and not one I'd like myself to be in. You should try asking a few people in the health care field what they want for *themselves* in a similar situation to get an idea of what it's like. Saying you'd want this for your patient because it's HUMANE and what you'd want for yourself is FAR different than embracing a "culture of death" (by which I think you really mean a "culture of convenience"). I'm not saying they should kill her for her husband's convenience, I'm saying that if she's brain dead, her body should be allowed to die as well, which is what I'd want in that situation.

The Church is against suicide, which is what you are suggesting. Many people WANT to die (whether in a similar situation, worse, or better). It is a matter of what God wants.

If God wants her to live, why doesn't he allow her to feed herself? No, I can't believe it's a Catholic's obligation to perform EVERY medical intervention no matter how invasive whether the patient wants it or not. If you can show me where the church recommends treating people against their will REGARDLESS of the severity of their situation, I'm open to look. Otherwise, respectfully, I think you are trying to make a grey situation black and white and coming up with an incorrect conclusion.

You state, "...and let her meet the Lord.", but we have NO idea what state her soul is at. In FACT, in letting her die pre-maturely, we might actually be sending her to hell.

This is a good question, but will divert the thread. If someone WOULD have earned salvation if they had lived, but they got killed before that, would they go to Hell, or would our omniscient God give them the benefit of the doubt?

For the Love of God, no one really WANTS to die

But if the brain isn't working, the person isn't "wanting" anything. Again, I am not necessarily speaking to this particular case, which seems to be being deliberately obfuscated byt the two sides involved.

And I laugh at the idea of a "living will". If you would honeslty consider allowing your wife or family to kill you, then there is something wrong. You are subscribing the the culture of death.

No, Jake, my wife is a very competent person, and is quite familiar with my beliefs and why I hold them. I think that she'll make the same decision for me that I'd make myself, and I'm glad she's there to make it if I can't.

One cannot make a descision about "if" they were in a situation. You can't know until you're there!

The reason for the living will is AFTER the accident, it's TOO LATE to make a decision for yourself, like with Terri. If she had a living will saying "keep me alive at all costs", we wouldn't be here today. That is the purpose of the living will. If that's what you believe, write it out, and let the people around you KNOW that! Similarly, if you wouldn't want to spend 13 years, then maybe 30-40 more in her situation, that would be covered too.

I'd rather live out the rest of my life suffering a misserable and horible death, then to have the plug pulled a moment to soon, and lose the chance at a NUMBER of ways to glorify God (not to mention if you are in a state of unrepented sin when the plug is pulled

If that works for you, great, let others around you know this so that it comes to be if, God forbid, you are ever in this situation. BUT, before you do, you might want to spend some time (longitudinally, not just a day somewhere) with brain-dead people and see what it's like. Keeping a brain-dead person supported indefinitely doesn't seem like the best plan to me.

It is even worse to think that doctors, et al, would ASSume we would want to die.

No doctor assumes that. People are treated as "full codes" unless they specifically have said they do NOT want to be recussitated. Everyone starts out being treated, just like she's been treated for the past 13 years while in the same state. There's a time to lay your burden down though Jake, mine might not be the same as yours, but part of trusting in Christ IMO is looking forward to meeting Him when it's our time.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.


Governor Bush reordered feeding tubes to be put in place.

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 21, 2003.

Sorry Frank if I jumped on you.

I think I was refering more to the situation envolving Terri. If you are brain dead, technically, you are dead petty much. You are suppored by machines, but your not "conscious" so to speak. you are KEPT alive. In that case, "pulling the plug" isn't really painful for the patient. Actually, for a brain dead person, being kept alive wouldn't be painful either! In this situation, "pulling the plug" is more of a relief for the family (and a letting lose of a "trapped" soul). In Terri's case, her lungs are pumping her own oxigen, her heart is pumping her own blood. Everything is operating. She just can't move her mouth! She is indeed "aware"! I'm sure that if she really was a vegitable, brain dead that is, her parents would agree with her husband. But it is crystal clear that they are on two different pages. Terri's husband has built up a make believe situation. He has "willed" himself to believe that she is dead. He gave up hope on her 10 years ago! And now, if she does indeed recouperate, boy is he in hot water (with a "fiance" and two kids).

I see your point, in the event that your body is dead, only kept alive by machines. But if all you are lacking is food, then that is another story. Starving to death in a conscious state is comparable to being burried alive. Same with oxigen. If you are alive, but sustaned by a machine pumping your lungs. Sufficating to death consciously! That is much different.

It's just sad that doctors and others would not err on life when a "gray" area like this is reached. I don't really think it is gray though.

In Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake_huether@yahoo.com), October 21, 2003.


Jmj

Hello, G.T.
You wrote: "What is perhaps at issue is that the METHOD to provide food and water is extraordinary, and that I think is within a person's right to decide whether he/she wants it done or not, because it isn't natural."

I believe that Catholic teaching is against this idea you've expressed. The "method" being used in this case (whether via tube or intravenous) is not "extraordinary," but "artificial" -- and there is nothing unusual or illicit about most "artificial" things in life. Besides, it is not the character of the method that matters. Nutrition and hydration, no matter how they are administered, are "ordinary care," the Church teaches us -- so they simply cannot be cut off (until the very last hours of life, and only after a doctor says that it is of no benefit [not being digested] or even counterproductive [hastening death]).


Jake H, I don't think that you had to apologize to Frank. It makes me very sad to say, but you were right to tell him, "Frank ... I've found as of late that you are really being overcome by the culture of death."

Jake, Frank is in the medical field. He has never wanted to talk about what he does, so we don't know if he is cleaning bed pans or doing neurosurgery. Regardless, though, I suspect that his exposure to the warped arguments of pro-death medical personnel and/or writers (speaking contrary to Catholic doctrine) -- and perhaps his frequent observation of severely disabled, bedridden people -- have broken his spirit and persuaded him to accept parts of the pro-death philosophy.

Long exposure to bad thinking in the medical field can really mess a person up. I knew that Frank was in trouble even a couple of years ago, when (on an old thread) he approved of the use of birth control pills by a sexually active, married woman, for non-contraceptive purposes. He clung to this even when shown that an orthodox moral theologian (priest) and a decades-long pro-life leader (laywoman) explained that it was not morally licit because it could result in an abortion.


But enough of the negative talk. It's time to celebrate the fact that, thanks to emergency legislative and executive action in Florida, Terrie Schiavo is now being rehydrated intravenously, in preparation for the reinsertion of the feeding tube. (Time will tell if an investigation will be ordered to determine whether or not Mr. Schiavo physically abused his wife, causing her current condition or exacerbating it to hasten her death. He definitely deserves time in the slammer, instead of time with his mistress.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 21, 2003.


how can this be life? The government needs to keep out of these matters. Let this women go be with her God.

-- cheri grimes (mowry-stoli@charter.net), October 21, 2003.

Jake,

NP. Seems to me your heart's in the right place.

John,

Actually, I still do IF the reason for the hormonal therapy ("birth control pills") is NOT contraception but some other medically necessary reason. You might not like it, but if *medically necessary*, I haven't seen a church document yet against it. Perhaps you are thinking of joining the schismatics in their private interpretation of church teachings?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 21, 2003.


Hi John,

They showed video of Terri (didn't say how old it was) on CBS evening news tonight, but she certainly did not look to be brain dead (i.e. beyond hope) as the louse of a husband seemed to imply. I still think that one should decide for him/herself if he/ she wants extraordinary or artificial means of sustaining life performed. There's a huge difference between not wanting a feeding tube and deliberately overdosing on sleeping pills for example, imho.

And in defense of Frank, John, as to birth control pills, are you aware that they are also prescribed for severe acne? And, mini-pills, smaller doses taken for only a few days a month, are also prescribed for regulating periods.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), October 22, 2003.


Jmj

Frank, you wrote: "You might not like it ..."

It has nothing to do with what I "like," but with my always being willing to follow the Church's moral theology and you not always being willing. I don't consult my preferences. I just obey. You should try to do the same consistently.

You continued: "... but if *medically necessary*, I haven't seen a church document yet against it.

You're in a medical profession (and thus able to access the latest info), yet you are still fooled into believing that the use of these extremely dangerous drugs is "medically necessary"? That's the whole point of the dispute! All this time, I thought you were well enough informed to realize that they are NOT "medically necessary." If they were "medically necessary," I would not have opposed you previously or now.

But (1) they are not "necessary," since there are alternative treatments (that could never kill an unborn baby) ... AND ... (2) the medical problems for which these killer drugs are being used are not life-threatening (which fact itself renders them NOT necessary). And even if there were no alternative treatments, it would be necessary to let a non-life-threatening condition go untreated than to risk killing a baby.

Besides being a danger to babies, these "pathetic synthetics" have always been known to be very dangerous to women. The lists of side effects -- including death -- in the PDR and package inserts are enormous. Now there is research (with which you may not even be familiar) that links these stupid pills with increased chance of breast cancer (including a huge increased risk, if I recall correctly, for young nulliparous patients). No doctor in his right mind should be prescribing this garbage to anyone, for any reason. Please, for once in your life, Frank, put a little thought and research into this, instead of making another knee-jerk, pro-medical-establishment decision.

You ended with the following disgusting slur: "Perhaps you are thinking of joining the schismatics in their private interpretation of church teachings?"

The situations are nothing alike. Those people are misinterpreting or rejecting actual Church teachings (or authority). By contrast, in the absence of a Vatican comment about this precise, specific situation, my pastoral and pro-life sources (whom you rejected) did just what the Church teaches people to do. They took basic, general principles of morality and applied them to the specific circumstances that we are discussing ... and they arrived at the conclusion that I relayed to you. But in your overblown pride, you think that you can be a better judge of the morality of a situation than an orthodox priest (moral theologian) and a pro-life leader with 30 years' experience who has had contact with countless other moral theologians! You should be ashamed of yourself!

There is a growing number of outstanding pro-life (and not just Catholic) physicians/ob-gyns who would tell you exactly the same thing I have been telling you. You are wrong to think that you need to see the details of every specific case spelled out in a Vatican document. The Church doesn't work that way.

[GT, part of what I just told Frank rebuts what you said about the non-contraceptive uses of these pills. I've known about those uses for almost 20 years. Such uses can no longer be justified -- not even in celibate women, in my opinion -- now that so much is known about the terrible adverse side effects.]

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 22, 2003.


John,

But (1) they are not "necessary," since there are alternative treatments (that could never kill an unborn baby) ... AND ... (2) the medical problems for which these killer drugs are being used are not life-threatening (which fact itself renders them NOT necessary).

I think you'll find an "IF medically necessary" in my post. Therefore, if medically necessary o.k., if not, not o.k.

And even if there were no alternative treatments, it would be necessary to let a non-life-threatening condition go untreated than to risk killing a baby

I disagree, in that something that is not currently life-threatening may become so if untreated. This medical judgement needs to be made by the patient and their physician. Remember John, even without contraceptives, anyone engaging in intercourse might be causing abortions, not all fertilizations result in babies! This doesn't mean no one should have sex. The issue is *intent*. If your INTENT of the contraceptives is NOT to change your fertility, but rather to treat a medical condition that these are necessary for, that's o.k. If your INTENT is to not allow pregnancy, this is NOT o.k. Simple.

But in your overblown pride, you think that you can be a better judge of the morality of a situation than an orthodox priest (moral theologian) and a pro-life leader with 30 years' experience who has had contact with countless other moral theologians! You should be ashamed of yourself!

That's why the parallel between you and the schismatics is so fitting. They've got a hero in the now-excommunicated archbishop Lefebvre, but who was *before* his excommunication also an orthodox guy. He was wrong though. One theologian can ALWAYS be wrong, if you want me to follow something, show me the church document on it. That's the difference between you (apparently) and I. I want my information to come from the Church, and not just one fallible person. (see the parallel with the schismatics, LOL)

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.


You know John, we probably should just skip it for now. Mrs. Schiavo as a topic probably shouldn't get buried.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 22, 2003.


Jmj

Frank, you wrote: "You know John, we probably should just skip it for now. Mrs. Schiavo as a topic probably shouldn't get buried."

You are right ... but you should have thought of that before posting some more wrong stuff (which I can't let stand unanswered). [And you had the power to delete your own post, but left it up.]

1. Last time, I wrote: "... even if there were no alternative treatments, it would be necessary to let a non-life-threatening condition go untreated than to risk killing a baby." To this you responded: "I disagree, in that something that is not currently life-threatening may become so if untreated."

In such a case, I would consider the patient's condition already life-threatening, which would allow for the use of dangerous remedies. However, almost everything for which this junk is prescribed has nothing to do with a threat to a woman's life.

2. You wrote: "This medical judgement needs to be made by the patient and their [sic (should be 'her')] physician."

I simply cannot believe I read an alleged Catholic pro-lifer write that ridiculous statement, which has been used by the pro-death cause for at least 35 years (to justify abortion, euthanasia, etc.). You could easily get a job with Planned Parenthood if you put that in your resume.

Things like this cannot be left to "patient" and (any old) "physician" alone. The correct thing for us to say is this:
"A potentially life-and-death decision like this needs to be made by the patient, after she has conferred with a well-informed pro-life physician and an orthodox moral theologian (or at least his/her written works)."

3. You continued to astound me by writing: "Remember John, even without contraceptives, anyone engaging in intercourse might be causing abortions, not all fertilizations result in babies!"

In two ways, this is sheer nonsense! (1) People who don't use contraceptives dont "caus[e] abortions." (2) All fertilizations DO result in babies. (They are not all born, but they are all babies.) How in the world could you not know this?

4. "The issue is *intent*. If your INTENT of the contraceptives is NOT to change your fertility, but rather to treat a medical condition that these are necessary for, that's o.k. If your INTENT is to not allow pregnancy, this is NOT o.k. Simple."

No. This is contrary to Catholic morality. More than a woman's good intention must be involved. You seem to be trying to approve of a potentially deadly act by appealing to the moral principle known as the Double Effect. However, that principle calls for applying strict rules before one can take an action. The use of a potentially abortifacient drug by a woman (who has no life-threatening condition and who could become pregnant) fails the Double Effect test. That is why my sources properly reject it -- and why you are not permitted to support it.

5. "[blah-blah-blah] ... (see the parallel with the schismatics, LOL)"

There is no parallel whatsoever, as I proved with great care in my last message. Apparently, you can't understand English.

Can you find a way to make yourself even more obnoxious? Unjustly trying to lump me in with the people whom I have faught tooth and nail for two years -- people who are still here partly because you failed to ban them -- makes you, in my opinion, the most disgusting person on the whole forum (even worse the the schismo-hereticals themselves). And then you top it off with that asinine "LOL" manure! "Laughing Out Loud," indeed! We'll see if you're laughing on Judgment Day, after having given women advice that resulted in some of their kids being killed.

6. "ChimingIn"

Yeah? Well, please CHIME OUT until you decide to become fully Catholic.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 23, 2003.


John,

Frank, you wrote: "You know John, we probably should just skip it for now. Mrs. Schiavo as a topic probably shouldn't get buried."

You are right ... but you should have thought of that before posting some more wrong stuff (which I can't let stand unanswered). [And you had the power to delete your own post, but left it up.]

O.k. John, if "last wordsies" is more important than the thread, I'll play along. A new thread can always be started on Mrs. Schiavo after all. On the second part, I have made it my policy not to edit or delete any of my own threads once posted, Paul is acting as the Moderator, not me, so I should be on the same playing field as anyone else. (Of course if someone starts posting porno pictures again, I don't mind removing those).

You wrote: "This medical judgement needs to be made by the patient and their [sic (should be 'her')] physician."

I simply cannot believe I read an alleged Catholic pro-lifer write that ridiculous statement,

Well, reread it a few times, you'll believe.

which has been used by the pro-death cause for at least 35 years (to justify abortion, euthanasia, etc.). You could easily get a job with Planned Parenthood if you put that in your resume.

Planned Parenthood wouldn't want me, LOL. Anyway John, from the aspect of medicine I see scrubbing away at the toilets every day, I wouldn't want judgements made *except* on an individual basis. Every patient is different. It's not like counting beans.

. You continued to astound me by writing: "Remember John, even without contraceptives, anyone engaging in intercourse might be causing abortions, not all fertilizations result in babies!"

In two ways, this is sheer nonsense! (1) People who don't use contraceptives dont "caus[e] abortions." (2) All fertilizations DO result in babies. (They are not all born, but they are all babies.) How in the world could you not know this?

Well, John, I think you are straining at terminology. Not many people consider a newly fertilized egg to be a new-born baby. They are both *people*, but one has actually been delivered alive, and one may or may not make it that far. To directly respond to your numbered posts: 1. My point is that any fertilized egg MAY be aborted, so in fact, sex itself, DOES result in a low level of abortions through failure to implant, etc. To suggest otherwise is truly "nonsense". 2. I think I've already answered this above.

On your #4, that's just your opinion. Unless you are an ob/gyn, you are not qualified to state whether or not a condition that is not currently life threatening may or may not become so without treatment. That's why each case must be judged on an individual basis. YOU cannot guarantee me that someone who you've never seen and know nothing about has a guarantee of not having a potentially life threatening condtion, when you don't even know WHAT that condition is! If you wanted to amend your statement to say that "a condition which is not life-threatening and will NEVER become so regarless of whether or not it is treated (etc.)" you might have a legitimate argument.

Can you find a way to make yourself even more obnoxious?

John, having been here for awhile, who's *behavior* here has been criticized more often, yours or mine? Reread your own post for a few examples of obnoxiousness if you think you should start judging me. In any event, it could appear to others that you are trying to shift from the substance of the debate to an ad hominem fallacy with this, which would further weaken your position.

Yeah? Well, please CHIME OUT until you decide to become fully Catholic

See, this is what I'm talking about. Even though I disagree with you (and you ARE wrong), I didn't ask you to quit posting. Since we've already veered from the topic and into personal attacks, you really should work on your interpersonal skills. It would increase your credibility.

Frank



-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 24, 2003.


As trite as it may seem. I have witnessed people in this state. I would not wish this on anyone, even people I do not care for. Say prayers for Terri's peaceful death and bible thumpers to pull their heads out of their collective rectum and realize that there are worse things than death. Like life as a freak show event. I wish society as a whole could be as humane toward people as we are to animals. My prayers are with Terri, her husband should have done the right thing by ending his marrige with her legally, but I still think her best interests would involve putting the poor lady to peace.

-- Mark P. (xrdtech@yahoo.com), October 24, 2003.

there are worse things than death. Like life as a freak show event.

There are things even worse than that.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 24, 2003.


Frank, without a doubt, you are the most stupid and obnoxious person with whom I have ever dealt on this forum. And that is really saying something, when one considers all the horrible, barely human creatures that have been here. You become worse than they, because you should know better than to do what you have done. They have excuses that you don't have. You are plum stupid to the depths of your being, and you have really been even worse for this forum than the schismo-heretical crew.

You wrote: "O.k. John, if 'last wordsies' is more important than the thread, I'll play along."

You don't even seem to TRY to read English. I didn't say that "getting in the last word" is important. Rather, I said that not leaving errors dangling (unrefuted) is important. If you had left a message here that was clear of errors, I wouldn't have posted again. I couldn't care less who gets the last word, as long as it is a correct and truthful word. How in the world could you not figure that out? Why do I have to explain something so elementary to you? Does this forum need such non-thinkers as you seem to be?

You wrote: "I have made it my policy not to edit or delete any of my own threads once posted, Paul is acting as the Moderator, not me, so I should be on the same playing field as anyone else."

Ordinarily, this would be fine. But a person has to be flexible. In this case, any sensible person who has the password would have made an exception and done a deletion. But, as I have been showing, you are not sensible. You acknowledged that you shouldn't have posted that provocative and error-filled message, but you failed to take the simple action of deleting it -- and you didn't ask Paul to delete it either! Yes, you'd better not delete others' messages (except porn), but do delete your own not-yet-answered messages when they are bad ones.

In the previous post, you actually said that "without contraceptives, anyone engaging in intercourse might be causing abortions" and that "not all fertilizations result in babies". I explained how wrong these statements are, but instead of having the gallantry to admit that you were wrong -- or had at least used poor language to try to communicate something -- you actually defended your original words. You are so puffed up with pride, and so unwilling to humble yourself to someone whom you hate (me), that you try to defend the indefensible. And you wonder why I get angry at you and insult you? You deserve every moment of anger, every name, every fraternal correction -- and even more than I dish out to you.

You wrote: "I think you are straining at terminology."

No. I didn't strain. You fouled up, but don't have the guts to admit it.

"Not many people consider a newly fertilized egg to be a new-born baby."

I never used the term "new-born baby." Why did you insert the word "new-born"? Are you nuts? How could you think that I was calling a one-cell person a "new-born baby." What I actually said was that "all fertilizations DO result in babies." When I said that, I assumed that, if you are a pro-lifer, you would immediately think of the phrase "unborn babies" -- a term pro-lifers use from the moment of conception onward.

You wrote: "... any fertilized egg MAY be aborted, so in fact, sex itself, DOES result in a low level of abortions through failure to implant, etc. To suggest otherwise is truly 'nonsense.'"

I repeat: your words are the "nonsense." You either think wrongly, or you don't know how to express your thoughts in standard English. Last time, you wrongly said that "intercourse [can] caus[e] abortions." This time, you wrongly said that "sex itself DOES result in [some] abortions." What does a person have to do to help you see how ridiculous this is? It is not "intercourse/sex" that "causes/results in" abortion [meaning miscarriage/spontaneous abortion], but rather some damage or deficiency of one kind or another (chemical, structural, etc.) that causes the abortion. You of all people -- someone from the medical field -- ought to be speaking the truth and using the right words.

You wrote: "If you wanted to amend your statement to say that 'a condition which is not life-threatening and will NEVER become so regardless of whether or not it is treated (etc.)' you might have a legitimate argument."

I already had a "legitimate argument." You've never had one. Even the one you are proposing that I adopt is not legitimate, because it gives the prescriber of death-drugs too much "wiggle room" (and I even suspected that you would pull such a stunt). The word "NEVER" cannot be accepted, for it provides an excuse to the doctor always to prescribe. That's the way these pro-death guys operate. The words "probably not" must replace "never."

And now for the pieces de resistance ...
1. Last time, because you had twice tried to implicate me as being like a schismatic or heretic, I asked, "Can you find a way to make yourself even more obnoxious?"
To this, instead of apologizing for the way you had twice unjustly insulted me, you stupidly replied: "John, having been here for awhile, whose *behavior* here has been criticized more often, yours or mine?"

You pulled out this same asinine comment out of some dark hole once before, some months ago. Since I thoroughly refuted it then, I won't waste time doing it again. Instead, you have the duty to recall how I refuted it before, so that you can be ashamed of saying it again.

You wrote: "... it could appear to others that you are trying to shift from the substance of the debate to an ad hominem fallacy with this, which would further weaken your position."

Nothing could ever "weaken [my] position" when it comes to arguing with the likes of you. I couldn't care less what "others" think. What matters to me is that YOU know that YOU are wrong -- and sickening to boot. I prove you wrong on facts, and I also prove you short on character. You falsely call this an "ad hominem fallacy," in a desperate attempt to get off the hook. Just as any lowlife does, you are attempting to deflect attention from the key matters I've explained.

In response to my joke about "Chime out," you stated: "Even though I disagree with you ... I didn't ask you to quit posting."

Like heck, you didn't. This was your way of asking me "to quit posting": "You know John, we probably should just skip it for now."

You concluded with: "Since we've already veered from the topic and into personal attacks, you really should work on your interpersonal skills. It would increase your credibility."

You forgot again that you've played that card, in the same words, before. If you would you review all the careless errors (which are insulting to others), the baiting, the snide remarks, the "LOLs", etc., etc., that YOU make, you will see that YOUR "interpersonal skills" aren't worth $#!], if you'll excuse my French. Moreover, these closing words of yours are yet another attempt to deflect attention from the substantive matters in which I've shown you to be wrong, left and right. What you need to learn is that my substantive corrections of you stand on their own merit, and they don't need for me to be a goody-two-shoes to make them truthful. In other words, I don't need added "credibility." You need it, because you don't have any at all on certain topics.

Finally, you dare you tell me that I "should work on [my] interpersonal skills," in light of the fact that you were guilty of the greatest wrongdoing ever perpetrated at this forum. I am actually SHOCKED that you had the chutzpah to come back here in mid-2003, as though you had done nothing wrong. And you have STILL not apologized for the horrendous deed that you (and your former puppeteer/ventriloquist) pulled here in January and February of this year.

Good people who have begun to post here only since April (or so) don't know that you went berserk, inventing an insane rule that resulted in the suspension of (at least) Eugene and David S and the deletion of all (20 or more) messages that I posted on three non-consecutive days. Your diabolical deeds were overreactions to some forceful, but perfectly acceptable, language that the parties concerned used in one or more of their messages. In my case, I said ONE thing that bothered you in ONE message on each of three days, but you deleted ALL my messages on ALL those days. In Gene's case, you suspended him for a week merely for strongly arguing that what you were perpetrating was despicable.

Now, since recalling this sears me with pain, I had no intention of ever bringing it up again (despite the fact that you don't belong here without having abjectly apologized). But you forced it out of me by having the gall to criticize me personally on this thread and to tell me about "interpersonal skills." You, sir, are one of the greatest cads for whom God has ever created a soul. Don't EVER again tell me what to do or how to behave at this forum or anywhere else, Mr. Hypocrite with a capital "H"!

But ... God bless you anyway (especially with the grace to repent).
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.


PS: I forgot to mention another of your sickening assaults, Frank, for which you never bothered to apologize. I am referring to the time you falsely accused David S of posting messages as "Minasay," a Moslem woman. Even after David contacted her and got her to come back and say that she was not David, you still didn't apologize. You REALLY don't belong here, Frank.

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.

John,

I'll state upfront I didn't bother reading all of your post, but I got the gist of it, LOL!

Frank, without a doubt, you are the most stupid and obnoxious person with whom I have ever dealt on this forum.

Well, when someone says something like this to you, you have to consider the source. If the Pope said that to me, I'd be ashamed. From you, I guess it's a compliment.

John, you've done a great job at taking a thread on Mrs. Schiavo, bringing up something irrelavent, then switching to ad hominem attacks, and NOW, if someone starts with the most recent posts, they won't even know it's ABOUT Mrs. Schiavo. I just hope you didn't convince someone to euthanize their relative with your vitriol.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 25, 2003.


No, Franky-boy. YOU messed up the thread by taking a partially anti-life point-of-view that is contrary to Catholic teaching. You just couldn't keep your politically liberal opinion to yourself.

Now, in your typical manner, you absolve yourself of blame and want to pin the blame on me. I won't let you. People need to know who you really are and why you don't belong here.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 25, 2003.


John,

I forgive you, and ask YOUR forgiveness for any harm I did to you. We are all sinners John, let us love one another as Christ loved us.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 25, 2003.


John:

I think maybe thanking Frank for forgiving you might be appropriate. Don't you?

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 26, 2003.


"As we ask for forgiveness, we forgive. This is what we say every day when we pray the prayer Christ taught us: "Our Father... forgive us our trespasses as we forgive those who trespass against us." May this Jubilee Day bring all believers the fruit of reciprocal forgiveness given and received!

From forgiveness reconciliation flowers. This is what we desire for the whole ecclesial community, for the ensemble of all believers in Christ, and for the whole world.

Forgiven and ready to forgive, Christians enter the third millennium as more credible witnesses of hope. After centuries characterized by violence and destruction, and after this particularly dramatic one, the Church presents to humanity, which crosses the threshold of the third millennium, the Gospel of forgiveness and reconciliation, as the premise to construct an authentic peace."

-Pope John Paul II

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 26, 2003.


Italics off.

-- jake (jake1@REMOVEpngusa.net), October 26, 2003.

Frank writes: "John, I forgive you, and ask YOUR forgiveness for any harm I did to you. We are all sinners John, let us love one another as Christ loved us."

Jake writes: "John: I think maybe thanking Frank for forgiving you might be appropriate. Don't you?"

No, Jake. It would not be appropriate for me to thank him, because I have not done anything to Frank for which I need to be forgiven. What he wrote was not written in a way that would show sincerity.

As Frank says, we "are all sinners" -- not the least of whom is me. Hurting people in life is sometimes justifiable (because they need to be punished/reprimanded), but I have unjustifiably hurt some people at this forum. When I am aware and convinced that I have done this, I apologize. That is not the case here, though.

Being a Catholic who has made Confessions and sought absolution, Frank knows that his statement (1) should not have tried to forgive someone else, (2) should have mentioned what he did wrong, and (3) should have asked forgiveness of all who were offended -- not just me. Instead ...

(1) He used the cynical tactic of accusing me by pretending to forgive me.
(2) He didn't say what he did wrong, so he may not really feel guilty for the specific things by which he hurt people. Catholics don't go to Confession and try to get absolution without naming our sins.
(3) He asked only my forgiveness, not that of Gene, David S, and anyone else he treated wrongly. Jake, Frank needs to reflect on the fact that he must have spoken fifty times, to you and your pals in the past month, in harsher language than that which he considered grounds for his deletion of scores of messages and suspension of good people in January. He needs to apologize to all the people to whom he did that stuff (not just to me), naming as many as he can recall.

When he does these things and leaves out his unnecessary forgiveness of me, then I will accept his apology and forgive him.


Speaking of apologies and forgiveness, Jake, I was on the verge of accepting yours (posted here and sent to me about two months ago) and of forgiving you, because you had gone almost silent for several weeks and actually seemed to be turning over a new leaf. But then you suddenly became virulently active against the Catholic Church again, so I was unable to reply favorably to your e-mail. In the last day or so, I noticed that you have written your very worst comments since the "abomination" fiasco of 1.5 years ago. Yesterday, by trashing the newer rite of the Mass, bashing the priests who celebrate it, and mocking the Church led by the pope as though it were something that is not Catholic, you have made it clearer than ever (since the date of your improper reinstatement) that you should be banned.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), October 26, 2003.


John,

Give me a break. You are not a priest I'm going to confession to, there's no formal littany I need to recite to tell another person I'm sorry. I'll try again though for Christian Charity.

John, I'm sorry for my actions that have harmed you, and ask your forgiveness. I interpretted some of your actions as harmful to me, and forgive you for them too. You don't need to post a reply, if I was asking for one, that would leave you with an *obligation*, which you may not wish to fulfil. But there you go.

God bless you John,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), October 26, 2003.


I was on the verge of accepting yours (posted here and sent to me about two months ago) and of forgiving you

Whether you accept or reject it is up to you. I said things with the intent of provoking you to anger, and that was wrong. Should you choose not to forgive, I can't help you.

you have made it clearer than ever (since the date of your improper reinstatement) that you should be banned.

My reinstatement was done by the Moderator at the time. My presence here now is up to the current Moderator. I've stated to him publicly now several times that were he to ban me, I'd leave and not offer a peep of protest. To date, though, he's not chosen to do that, despite being...lobbied to do so.

I won't leave voluntarily. Until such time as I am banned, you should either learn to live with me, learn to ignore me, or just be quiet. Those are your alternatives at the moment, unless of course you want to leave.

Viva Christo Rey!

-- jake (jake1REMOVE@pngusa.net), October 26, 2003.


BARK BARK BARK, GROOOOOWWWWL, BARK. GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR!!!!! RUFF RUFF. SNARL.

sorry, just thought id get in on a bit of the action. cool it off a bit guys... it is, after all, just an internet forum. LOL sometimes i amuse myself too much (mad as a hatter, i am)

-- Paul (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), October 27, 2003.


This is so sad that this thread has been so derailed. It started out with such good information and even included mention of personal contact with the family.

Then mention was made of an old and unrelated thread. Then personal attacks started. And unfortunately, name calling and personal attacks DO UNDERMINE credibility. Then there seemed to be an old grudge that was brought up. TOTALLY UNRELATED. BTW no one FORCES another person to do anything on this forum. Don't you think that kind of wording should be reserved for when someone has absolutely no choice about something? Makes me think of when Adam blamed Eve (paraphrased here: "She made me do it.")

Let's get back to Terri and let's pray for her, her family, and for God's will to be done.

-- Let's Pray (ForTerri@amen.com), October 27, 2003.


John,

Thanks for rembering the "Minasay" blunder with Frank. But, also rember that Chris B was in shock that (his handpicked) puppet vanished after that incident.[for a few weeks].

Truth is Frank disappeared after that incident for a few weeks.(like a Carlos).

This is the same fellow that was bannng everyone at forum for speaking their mind! But, he has left over 50 posts in the past month doing the same thing.

Oh, well.We know that we should keep praying for Frank.

-- - (David@excite.com), October 31, 2003.


Jmj
Hello, Jake and Frank. (You're welcome, David/e).


Jake, you wrote: "I said things with the intent of provoking you to anger, and that was wrong. Should you choose not to forgive, I can't help you."

I'm surprised that you make this admission about what you did two months ago, but fail to see that you began again -- after several weeks of good behavior -- to say many, many "things with the intent of provoking" many Catholics "to anger." That's why I realized that your old apology rang hollow. When you are make a permanent commitment to change and prove that it is genuine, then I will believe and accept your apology.

You also wrote: "I won't leave voluntarily. Until such time as I am banned, you should either learn to live with me, learn to ignore me, or just be quiet. Those are your alternatives at the moment, unless of course you want to leave."

No. Those aren't my only alternatives -- and none of those is a valid alternative. A homeowner does not "learn to live with" insect pests, does not "learn to ignore" a broken and noisy appliance, does not "just remain quiet" when heretical missionaries try to preach to him in his living room, and does not "want to leave" his own abode.

In case you need help understanding the analogy: Since I am a Catholic, this Catholic forum is my "home away from home," and I will not sit by idly while a vicious and spiteful Protestant brigade like yours tries to destroy or to occupy my abode.

Contrary to your attempt to impose limits ("alternatives") on me, I am free to continue to do the only right thing for a Catholic -- which is to remind the Moderator that he has a duty, in Christian justice and charity, to ban you. Every day that he enables you to keep sinning here is a day on which he too commits two sins of omission -- one in failing to try to make a better person of you, and one in failing to protect good Catholics from your drivel. That is why it is my duty to keep speaking up.

You closed with: "Viva Christo Rey!" I just wanted to let you know that, in Spanish, the second word is "Cristo" (without the "h").


Frank, I believe that your apology is sincere. I accept it and forgive you. I mentioned what you did that offended me, so I assume that your apology is for all those things. If you are actually not sorry for one or more of the things I mentioned, I hope that you will say so, lest I believe something that is not true. But if I don't hear back from you about any "reservations" in your apology, I will make a commitment not to mention past injuries again.

I also encourage you to apologize to the other people I mentioned, whether publicly or privately. I appreciate your willingness to forgive me if I have done something wrong.

God bless you both.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@Hotmail.com), November 02, 2003.


Please participate in the Terri Schindler Life Ribbon Campaign!

http://bellsouthpwp.net/p/c/pc93/terri_schindler_life_ribbon_campaign .htm

-- pc93 (pc93@bellsouth.net), November 03, 2003.


I am free to continue to do the only right thing for a Catholic -- which is to remind the Moderator that he has a duty, in Christian justice and charity, to ban you. Every day that he enables you to keep sinning here is a day on which he too commits two sins of omission

Until such time as that happens, I remain just as free to be here as you. Therefore, I reiterate, for now:

1. Live with me.

2. Ignore me, or

3. Be quiet.

This isn't "your house." You're a tennant, like me. Paul is the landlord. He can evict me. You cannot. Again, if he does, I'll bow out permanently, but I will not concede to you authority that you simly don't possess.

Thanks for the correction on my Spanish. I never got past Sapnish II, and that was 18 years ago.

Viva Cristo Rey!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 04, 2003.


Frank, if you've seen my reply to you, I'd like to ask you a question. (I'll wait to see if you are still looking at this thread.)


Jake, you still don't "get" it. It's sad to see how weak your reasoning powers are. But I guess that goes a long way to explaining how you could have fallen into schism and heresy.

You wrote: "I reiterate ... 1. Live with me. 2. Ignore me, or 3. Be quiet."
Try re-reading my last post (more than once if necessary). Maybe it will sink in why I have other options besides the three you listed (which three are, as I showed, illegitimate).

You stated: "This isn't 'your house.'"
I didn't say it was "my house." The Greenspuns own the site. I said that it was my "home away from home," which is shared with all orthodox Catholics (which doesn't include you).

You continued: "You're a tennant, like me."
I and every other orthodox Catholic is a permanent "tenant" here, but you are merely a temporary guest who is being permitted (by a tyrannical tenant) to overstay his former welcome.

You continued: "Paul is the landlord."
No, he isn't, for I pay him no rent. He is a fellow tenant who happens to be doing double duty as a "security guard."

Finally, "if he does [evict me], I'll bow out permanently, but I will not concede to you authority that you simply don't possess."

Who asked you to concede anything to me? No one. When did I presume to have any authority? Never. You make this stuff up. Your paranoia is symptomatic of your guilty conscience.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 04, 2003.


Your paranoia is symptomatic of your guilty conscience

I am paranoid, and my conscience is guilty; just not for the reasons you think it should be.

What do you want of me?

-- jake (j@k.e), November 04, 2003.


[Topping for Frank]

-- - (.@...), November 06, 2003.

John,

What's the question? Sorry, I'm kind of "feast or famine" checking in right now, missed this one.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 06, 2003.


Frank, would you like to join me in restoring this thread to what it was intended to be -- for current and future readers?

If so, please let's agree to petition the Moderator to delete everything to the bottom -- from the point where I addressed Jake H with the following words on October 21:
"Jake H, I don't think that you had to apologize to Frank."

In the subsequent text, there are probably two or three short posts that are "on point" and don't deserve to be deleted, though.

What do you think? I realize that it is not what we normally do here, but I thought that if there was ever a case for an exception, this might be it.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 06, 2003.


For the record, (before it might disappear)

Frank did not "disappear" for reasons that David implied. John, it is suprising that you did not set the record straight. Instead you just told David "you're welcome".

Truth is that Frank had medical problems, heart problems. That is very different than what David is implying.

While it's admirable and even desirable to want to "restore" this thread, Frank has been wronged in a variety of ways.

It's up to him of course, to answer John's request, but the record should be straight that he just didn't "disappear". Personally I think that Frank is owed an apology, more than just, "I appreciate your willingness to forgive me if I have done something wrong."

But in the long run let us continue to remember Terri and her family in our prayers.

-- Let's Pray (ForTerri@amen.com), November 07, 2003.


Let's pray,

Thank you for remembering, although I don't like to ;-) . Anyway, there IS a bright side to having a heart condition, I now really DO thank God when I wake up each day, I've become very appreciative of the extra time I've been given. It's also helped me to be a better father and husband, as I now realize that whatever I was thinking of putting off to do with the family for the sake of what I should do at work, I just do now, as there might not BE a tomorrow to do it in. Perhaps God just wanted me to wake up a bit.

Of course I also DISlike the fact that today might be it, but as our Muslim friends say, "Allahu Akbar".

John,

As for deleting the thread, I'd just as soon leave the thread stand. I for a long time was very minimalist in deleting things in general, but then attempted to enforce some civility here for *everyone* once people started e-mailing me telling me they were leaving secondary to the acrimonious nature of the place. It actually worked, IMO, as we began to get a more varied amount of posters rather than having 2 or 3 people posting about everything, and more women (who tend to leave the first when the place becomes one shouting match after another). Of course people who got deleted still don't like it, but I've moved on :-) . The torch has passed to a new victim/moderator, and he's doing a fine job, IMO.

It's tough being a moderator in that you must attempt to be as fair as possible. That means that everyone always sees the "other side" as having an advantage of things, but it's usually not that way. The big decision one has to make is to *just* delete frank profanity or gross insults against the church or people, or do you start deleting for content, such as a persistent anti-Catholic stance? That's the moderator's call though, and understanding his position, I support his decision, whichever way he decides.

For those who feel mortally offended when their post gets deleted, don't. I think I've even had a post or two deleted now that I'm free of the burden of trying to be equitable to all, and post what I will. Sometimes we sin and are uncharitable in our speech to each other. There's no harm in having that removed, and in fact we should be thankful that others don't get to see our sins broadcast in public. Yes, yes, I know some people will think that they are "instructing someone" when they call them an idiot, but I, and probably most people, disagree.

Well that's about it, and "Let's", thanks again for remembering,

Frank

P.S. While we are remembering, how about a prayer for Fred Bishop who was killed in a motorcycle accident.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.


"For the record,(Before it might disappear)"

You are confused! I will explain. You have a very familiar writing style.

"Truth is Frank had medical problems, heart problems......"

Yes, but Franks' problems(health) came 7 months after the orginal incident with "Minasay".[When he disappeare the FIRST time]]

"That is very different than what David is implying."

No, I am correct, and I could top older threads to show you how you are mixed up on the two differnt blundes[s] by the dates on the threads.

Frank did disappear after falseley accused me as being a Muslim lady [That was in forum 9 months earlier]. See this is where your mixed up.

And than almost a half a year went by, and then there were other incidents, and than this is where Frank got sick.

So see how I was correct, and you are wrong? I wasn't implying anthing because I was stating facts.(that I can prove with dates on older threads how wrong you are).

The problem is that there where two "disappearing" incidents and you have gotten them mixed up.

Just for the record,(Before it might dsappear)

-- - (David@excite.com), November 07, 2003.


David,

Yes, you are correct. This was around December or so? Don't remember which year. If I remember right, at the time you were impersonating other people on the forum, including myself (which was and is against forum rules). You and Minasay were posting from the same IP address (and no one else on the forum was), but I believe you if you say you aren't her. Do you deny posting as as others? It seems like a case of someone robbing 10 liquour stores and then getting morally indignant when they appear to have robbed an 11th and they vehemently deny it, and cry slander of their good name. It gets very tiring dealing with people who are determined to cause harm, David, if you are ever in a similar situation, you will realize this.

David, if you did not post as Minasay, I apologize for thinking you did (although I think I just said your IP was the same). Perhaps you should consider apologizing to all the people you maligned at the time.

As long as I'm coming clean, recently someone was posting things impersonating Paul about "apples and masturbation" that in my heart I thought was you. If you didn't, I'm sorry for falsely accusing you, and if you did, you really should come clean with Paul.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.


Hi, Frank

Thank you for you're apology, and I do accept it with a sincere heart.

"..You and Minasay were posting from the same I.P. address(and no one else on the forum was)"

Just for the record Frank, this is not true! I rember the other Moderator at the time(and I rember the thread if you want to read it with you're own eyes) said another regular poster ip address was coming up as Minasay too in the same thread.

You brought ip up 9 months since Minasay last posted-so you must of been holding this back from me. Minasay even came back and said some things about you, and that she stated that she, "posted her own Muslim posts".

"..recentley someone was posting things impersonating Paul about," apples and masterbation"that in my heat I thought was you.."

We'll Frank you were wrong again about me, because it wasn't me. I usually stay away from Masterbation threads because I think most of the time there a joke.[Ask Paul if was me if you want]

"If you didn't, I'm sorry for falseley accusing you."

Again Frank, I forgive you for falseley accusing me.

God bless you, and may you have a healty 2004.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 07, 2003.


Frank,

I forgot. I am sorry for the hurtful things I said to you when this incident was going on also.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 07, 2003.


David,

No problem, and I really am glad to hear that wasn't you with the "apples" thing, and am truly sorry for assuming it was you.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 07, 2003.


Frank,

I just have to help refresh your memory about one more topic that I just read in your previous post to me.[Its a good thing the Lord blessed me with a healthy memory Frank]

You are mixing the two different occurences up to. When Minasay posted (at that time) I never posted as you. I never posted as anyone else up at this time.

You said, "If I rember right, at the time you were impersonating other people.." You don't rember right Frank because I wasn't impersonating anyone at this time.

Are you with me at this point? Ok, than lets skip ahead 9 months or so, and this started when you got sick. I just wanted to help you see how what you wrote wasn't true about the first incident.

I just didn't want to be silent about this because it would of mean't that I agreed with what you posted about that.

Take care, Frank, and I will rember you in my prayers.

-- - (David@excite.com), November 07, 2003.


To the person signing off as "Let's Pray":
Your comments were not helpful at all.

Two examples of how you made things worse than they already were are these ...

1. You stated: "Frank has been wronged in a variety of ways."
I don't believe he "has been wronged" at all. But any honest person who disagrees with me on that would then have to say I have been wronged at least equally.

2. You stated: "Frank did not 'disappear' for reasons that David implied. John, it is suprising that you did not set the record straight. Instead you just told David 'you're welcome.'"
If you will scroll up to the 10/31 posts, you'll see that David started by saying to me: "Thanks for remembering the 'Minasay' blunder with Frank."
That is why I told him, "You're welcome."
After reading David's 10/31 comment about Frank's disappearance, I made no comment about that, because I was pretty sure that [as has now been confirmed] the short absence mentioned came long before Frank's health problem.

Since I am not sure who you are, "Let's Pray," I am not going to ask you to post an apology to me now, even though you should!

Frank, I withdraw my suggestion that the moderator delete anything from this thread -- for two reasons: (1) Someone could come across our conflicts on past threads, but could then see facts/apology/resolution related to them here. (2) It is important to have the facts/apologies related to David left permanently "on the record."

JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.


Don't be fooled John, it's not important at all. The *really* important things are kept in a big book upstairs. This is just amusement.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 08, 2003.


Don't say, Frank, that "it's not important at all."

I am not fooled. It may not be important to you at this moment in time, but it once was important to you, and it still is important to others.

"Important" is too weak a word for what is recorded in the Book of Life.
JFG

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 08, 2003.


(2)-"It is important to have the facts/apologies related to David left permantley "on the record"

Yes it is!:-)

I forgot to add that when Frank/(previous)Moderator was angry about my explaining my innocence(about the false accusation), he posted my computer idntification numbers in this forum.

I was reading tonight how this can be used by any criminal that is looking for information on someone. It made me think of this thread.

I agree with what Frank told another poster last week,"Its' a scary world we live in".

For being such a "private man"..??

-- - (David@excite.com), November 22, 2003.


-info bump

Florida Supreme Court Shoots Down Terri's Law

Governor Bush Files for Rehearing

Terri Schindler-Schiavo Foundation

-- Daniel Hawkenberry (dlm@catholic.org), October 08, 2004.


Moderation questions? read the FAQ