[goMac]

Whoops, move along, nothing to see..

[ironknee]

buster are u for real? can't you take a step back and look at this fuct up situation?

they got their 15 minutes, and now this...didn't these people (on the mailing lists) donated $ for the lawyers?

this is just a sad ending (hopefully)

[Mastrap]

Originally posted by budster101:
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt....

Go and donate some money to Greenpeace. Or do what I do and set up a standing order, donating a certain amount every month. It gives you the option to do so without your details being passed on to any third party. That's standard practice, not the exception.

Regardless of what your personal opinion might be.

[saddino]

Originally posted by budster101:
I wish some people would just shut the hell up.

Well, well, well: we finally agree on something.

Face it, the Schindlers are SCUMBAGS.

[starman]

Schindler's List?

[itistoday]

Originally posted by budster101:
And this is wrong because?

Greenpeace rents it's list of donors out...

I've read several articles on the topic, and it would seem they have one word in common.

Ghoulish... This seems to be a concerted effort to slander the parents of Terri Schiavo. When one dontates money to any organization, wether it be Greenpeace, or a conservative organization, one should expect your name to be public domain. It happens all the time, and this has been blown way out of proportion to the real sickness in this case.

This doesn't erase what Michael Schiavo (Saint to be) <sarcasm> has done.

- Kept family frmo Terri at the time of her death
- Cremated her against her parents wishes, and buried her far away, holding a secret funeral where they were not allowed. Not even Catholic. Terri was Catholic after all.

He is a monster.

The reality of it is, they are probably in debt beyond any of our guesses and are having to do this in order to stay away from bankruptcy. I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, unlike some of the Euthenasia Cheerleaders in here.

You are all are a sad bunch.

Oww! My eyes! The stupidity... make it stop!

[awaspaas]

What's wrong with youth in Asia? I fully support them.

[RonnieoftheRose]

Stupid ****ing 'free' country.

[andi*pandi]

Originally posted by budster101:
Greenpeace: They attempt to keep animals from extinction... many of them die anyway. They sell their donor list...

Terri Schiavo's Parents: Fight for their daughter's life. They failed. Allowed the sale of the donor list...

last I checked, whales weren't vegetables...

that said, if they are truly in debt, I see no problem with THEM spamming their past contributors... but they aren't a non-profit organization doing business, I don't see the ETHICS in selling the list.

[theolein]

Originally posted by budster101:
They are probably trying to break even. Unless you expect they'll survive on their social security income after all the bills are paid monthly...

I wish some people would just shut the hell up. Nobody knows their financial situation, and I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. I also doubt that any donor would mind being solicited by like-minded entities about issues they care about.

I don't see the problem.

They are in no way being profiteers, and that is just utter NONSENSE.

I just knew that someone would jump up to the plate.

That notwithstanding, you don't perhaps think that the Schindlers could have had the decency to ask their donors if they minded having their names sold to a conservative direct marketing organisation?

It's one thing to go on foaming at the mouth about this tragic case, but it's another to use to make money off, especially without asking those who donated.

Sadly, as I've said before, despite the foaming at the mouthof the repsective parties in this case, the ranting and raving in public by certain politicians (Today there was one in texas who actually condoned the use of violence against the judiciary) is a case of abusing Terri Schiavo's situation in order to get votes.

[Randman]

Her parents prostituted her name for their own benefit. So what if its to defray costs of a legal battle? That's not the point. The point is how they did it. They sold out the people who supported their daughter behind their backs.

[KeriVit]

My eyes are blleding from reading this post... just so I don't have to endure more... does anyone agrre with budster?

[KeriVit]

Originally posted by KeriVit:
My eyes are bleeding from reading this thread... just so I don't have to endure more... does anyone agree with budster?

spelling

[KeriVit]

BTW- what's a good typing program for OSX?

soory... i''l post elsewhere...

[RonnieoftheRose]

Originally posted by Randman:
Her parents prostituted her

They made money from a vegetable. That makes them greengrocers not pimps.

[- - e r i k - -]

Originally posted by budster101:
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt....

I can't take this chaos in my head anymore:

[Randman]

Originally posted by - - e r i k - -:
I can't take this chaos in my head anymore:

Ouch, the ultimate in being owned.

Still, with Cody Dawg uncharacteristically being quiet, aside from Budster's silliness in this thread, I don't think I remember any thread here with so many people in agreement that the Schindler's actions were scummy.

[Wiskedjak]

Trying to imagine what Buster would be saying if it were Michael Schiavo selling the names and personal information of the people who supported him ...

[ironknee]

Originally posted by Wiskedjak:
Trying to imagine what Buster would be saying if it were Michael Schiavo selling the names and personal information of the people who supported him ...

exactly!

what if he sold it to (gasp) greenpeace?

then the argument, i imagine, is see? just like x, y and z, he proves he's a slimebag...and look at the horror on terri's parent's and supporter's face....how...how...un-christian!

[Randman]

Considering a Christian virtue is forgiveness, budster doesn't seem to practice what is preached when it comes to this case no matter which side was in the right to begin with.

All I know is he's the one who requested the autoposy. He's the one lyng low and he's NOT the one selling out supporters to make money, even if some claim it's for legal bills.

[torsoboy]

i really hope that budster doesn't really feel the way that he is presenting himself. saying that it's okay to sell the names of your supporters just because other organizations do it does not make it right. people were trying to help them, and they went and stabbed them in the back. who cares what their debt is? any way you look at it, selling the names of the people trying to help their dying daughter was not right.

[paul w]

You know who's really bad? The Sierra Club.

I hear they're just a front for a massive southeast Asian child pornography ring.

This thread is pure silliness.

[Randman]

Originally posted by paul w:
I hear they're just a front for a massive southeast Asian child pornography ring.

Hmmm, does this count as "youth-in-Asia" talk?

[badidea]

Originally posted by KeriVit:
My eyes are bleeding from reading this post... just so I don't have to endure more... does anyone agree with budster?

Thank god no one so far!

[AKcrab]

Originally posted by Randman:
Still, with Cody Dawg uncharacteristically being quiet,...

I think she flew to the Vatican.

[Randman]

Originally posted by AKcrab:
I think she flew to the Vatican.

And here I thought she was compiling a list of Macnn members' email addresses to sell.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by Randman:
Ouch, the ultimate in being owned.

Still, with Cody Dawg uncharacteristically being quiet, aside from Budster's silliness in this thread, I don't think I remember any thread here with so many people in agreement that the Schindler's actions were scummy.

I felt that way the minute they started parading those videos around. Can you imagine how that would've made Terri Schiavo feel if she had had the capacity to understand what was happening? But they weren't primarily concerned with her wishes - they were primarily concerned with their own, and admitted as much under oath. I'm sure they loved their daughter, but I would've been ashamed to be a member of that family, and even more so now.

[budster101]

Originally posted by zigzag:
I felt that way the minute they started parading those videos around. Can you imagine how that would've made Terri Schiavo feel if she had had the capacity to understand what was happening? But they weren't primarily concerned with her wishes - they were primarily concerned with their own, and admitted as much under oath. I'm sure they loved their daughter, but I would've been ashamed to be a member of that family, and even more so now.

Under oath... hmm. Like when Michael admitted he didn't know her wishes?

Right

[budster101]

That being said..

I've just found out that the GOP talking points memo is for real and this has greatly influenced my oppinion on this topic.

It tells me the following may be true as well.

- The list sale was influenced in some way by this
- The Shindler's knew about this and supported it, or
- they were just pawns in this agenda.

Either way, I feel sorry for all parties involved.

--

[Apple Pro Underwear]

Originally posted by budster101:
That being said..

I've just found out that the GOP talking points memo is for real and this has greatly influenced my oppinion on this topic.

It tells me the following may be true as well.

- The list sale was influenced in some way by this
- The Shindler's knew about this and supported it, or
- they were just pawns in this agenda.

--

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html

Yup, Terry's life wasn't in vain or in SPAM, it was for political gain!

This woman not only had the mental capacity of a chair, she was used like one too.

If it was me, I would never want to be in state where people use me like that.

[budster101]

Originally posted by Apple Pro Underwear:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/04/....ap/index.html

Yup, Terry's life wasn't in vain or in SPAM, it was for political gain!

This woman not only had the mental capacity of a chair, she was used like one too.

If it was me, I would never want to be in state where people use me like that.

Florida > Quickly becoming competition for California.

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally posted by budster101:
Under oath... hmm. Like when Michael admitted he didn't know her wishes?

I thought that was just what a nurse overheard him say. Got a link?

[zigzag]

Originally posted by budster101:
Under oath... hmm. Like when Michael admitted he didn't know her wishes?

Right

I've been correcting people on the facts of the case for the past month. I haven't been wrong yet.

The parents not only testified that they would not have honored her wishes - they testified that if she developed gangrene, they would amputate her limbs, and if her heart failed, they would perform open heart surgery. This on a women whose brain had liquified. You can read about it in the report of the guardian ad litem who was appointed by Governor Bush and who described the family's testimony as "disturbing."

[Azzgunther]

Just want to make sure I'm clear on a few things:

1.) If I donate to any charitable organization, I should expect them to sell my name to every spammer they can find, and furthermore expect that they'll be very enthusiastic while they do it. Correct? I'm just confused about something....do they laugh like villains while they do it, or is it more of a cold-businesslike expression on their face?

2.) "Greenpeace is a dispicable organization."

Are all organizations whos members give their time and money to a cause they feel is important "dispicable", or is it just Greenpeace and others that you don't personally agree with?

3.) Assume I was in a horrible car wreck. I just want to be sure, Budster, that 5 months after the accident I AM IN FACT allowed to go rob the person's house who rescued me from my burning vehicle to in order to pay my medical bills. Can you confirm this for me?


A pre-emptive thanks for your responses to my queries, Budster. You really seem to have things figured out, and I trust your instincts about what is just, noble, and proper.

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by zigzag:I've been correcting people on the facts of the case for the past month. I haven't been wrong yet.

The parents not only testified that they would not have honored her wishes - they testified that if she developed gangrene, they would amputate her limbs, and if her heart failed, they would perform open heart surgery. This on a women whose brain had liquified. You can read about it in the report of the guardian ad litem who was appointed by Governor Bush and who described the family's testimony as "disturbing."

Well.. technically it was Judge David Demers who appointed GAL Wolfson after Governor Bush had signed executive order 03-201 based on the predictably unconstitutional Chapter 03-418. I'm just nitpicking but that doesn't change your basic point.

From Wolfson's report:
"Testimony provided by members of the Schindler family included very personal statements about their desire and intention to ensure that Theresa remain alive. Throughout the course of the litigation, deposition and trial testimony by members of the Schindler family voiced the disturbing belief that they would keep Theresa alive at any and all costs. Nearly gruesome examples were given, eliciting agreement by family members that in the event Theresa should contract diabetes and subsequent gangrene in each of her limbs, they would agree to amputate each limb, and would then, were she to be diagnosed with heart disease, perform open heart surgery. There was additional, difficult testimony that appeared to establish that despite the sad and undesirable condition of Theresa, the parents still derived joy from having her alive, even if Theresa might not be at all aware of her environment given the persistent vegetative state. Within the testimony, as part of the hypotheticals presented, Schindler family members stated that even if Theresa had told them of her intention to have artificial nutrition withdrawn, they would not do it. Throughout this painful and difficult trial, the family acknowledged that Theresa was in a diagnosed persistent vegetative state."

Like you I am also curious when Michael Schiavo made an admission under oath -and even while not under oath- that he didn't know Terri's wishes to be released from unwanted medical intervention in her dying process when there was no cure or hope for recovery.

The belief that he made such an admission is most likely based on the misinterpretation of statements by an allegedly newly discovered witness who purportedly had new evidence of Terri's wishes in April 2001. The comments from this newly discovered witness were subsequently proven to have been taken out of context when the witness herself gave a sworn deposition on May 8, 2001. The newly discovered witness said in interviews and in her deposition that the conversation with Michael Schiavo was not about whether Terri Schiavo wanted to live the way she does now, but whether she would have wanted to stay at a nursing home or at her parents' house in 1991.

It was another episode of Schindler deception that continues to be repeated although the courts correctly evaluated that situation based on all the available evidence -after initially issuing a stay for development of the evidence- and not just on the selective presentation of small portions of "evidence" so common in the Schindler motions. Until recently such meritless motions were almost always good for a stay but never contained enough fact to prevail in the final analysis.

[zigzag]

Originally posted by lurkalot:
Well.. technically it was Judge David Demers who appointed GAL Wolfson after Governor Bush had signed executive order 03-201 based on the predictably unconstitutional Chapter 03-418. I'm just nitpicking but that doesn't change your basic point.

No, thank you for pointing that out. It's a minor point, but I shouldn't have overlooked it. Wolfson's status ended up being moot but his report is easily the most useful single document aside from the trial court's order.

Like you I am also curious when Michael Schiavo made an admission under oath -and even while not under oath- that he didn't know Terri's wishes to be released from unwanted medical intervention in her dying process when there was no cure or hope for recovery.

The belief that he made such an admission is most likely based on the misinterpretation of statements by an allegedly newly discovered witness who purportedly had new evidence of Terri's wishes in April 2001. The comments from this newly discovered witness were subsequently proven to have been taken out of context when the witness herself gave a sworn deposition on May 8, 2001. The newly discovered witness said in interviews and in her deposition that the conversation with Michael Schiavo was not about whether Terri Schiavo wanted to live the way she does now, but whether she would have wanted to stay at a nursing home or at her parents' house in 1991.

It was another episode of Schindler deception that continues to be repeated although the courts correctly evaluated that situation based on all the available evidence -after initially issuing a stay for development of the evidence- and not just on the selective presentation of small portions of "evidence" so common in the Schindler motions. Until recently such meritless motions were almost always good for a stay but never contained enough fact to prevail in the final analysis.

It probably didn't matter what Michael said - it entered into the equation but the trial court discounted his testimony and relied principally on the testimony of the brother- and sister-in-law (whom I understand was her best friend). That such a simple fact could get completely lost in the Save Terri stampede is regrettable to say the least.

In any other case, the Schindler lawyers probably would have been sanctioned for filing frivolous motions. However, the political climate obviously dictated that they get every conceivable consideration. That's fine, but it illustrates the fact that conservatives and liberals alike will turn to frivolous litigation and government intervention when it suits them.

There's presently a case in Connecticut in which someone showed a terminally ill friend how to use a gun, and the friend later committed suicide (thanks, of course, to the fact that the right-to-lifers won't allow dignified, physician-assisted suicide). The guy was prosecuted for manslaughter. Thankfully, the judge had the good sense to give him probation. I'm totally fed up with right-to-lifers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/ny...itchfield.html

[Randman]

What I love most about these "pro-lifers" is how they're willing to let people suffer to prove their point. And maybe are willing to kill people who don't agree with their "pro-life" views.

[budster101]

Originally posted by Azzgunther:
Just want to make sure I'm clear on a few things:

1.) If I donate to any charitable organization, I should expect them to sell my name to every spammer they can find, and furthermore expect that they'll be very enthusiastic while they do it. Correct? I'm just confused about something....do they laugh like villains while they do it, or is it more of a cold-businesslike expression on their face?

Really doesn't matter to me. You wasted a lot of words for one stupid question.

2.) "Greenpeace is a dispicable organization."

Are all organizations whos members give their time and money to a cause they feel is important "dispicable", or is it just Greenpeace and others that you don't personally agree with?

Did I say the members were dispicable? I said the organization is dispicable.
I usually reserve such comments for organizations that I do NOT agree with. What do you do? Praise the organizations you despise? Another stupid and leading question. Are you some kind of cheap lawyer?

3.) Assume I was in a horrible car wreck. I just want to be sure, Budster, that 5 months after the accident I AM IN FACT allowed to go rob the person's house who rescued me from my burning vehicle to in order to pay my medical bills. Can you confirm this for me?

You are a lawyer...

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Do you?

A pre-emptive thanks for your responses to my queries, Budster. You really seem to have things figured out, and I trust your instincts about what is just, noble, and proper.

Was that sarcasm? Based on the idiocy of your questions, I can only hazzarrd to guess you have an extra job working at a gas station, while you aren't losing cases for your clients.

[ironknee]

Originally posted by budster101:
Really doesn't matter to me. You wasted a lot of words for one stupid question.



Did I say the members were dispicable? I said the organization is dispicable.
I usually reserve such comments for organizations that I do NOT agree with. What do you do? Praise the organizations you despise? Another stupid and leading question. Are you some kind of cheap lawyer?




You are a lawyer...

I have no idea what the hell you are talking about. Do you?




Was that sarcasm? Based on the idiocy of your questions, I can only hazzarrd to guess you have an extra job working at a gas station, while you aren't losing cases for your clients.

woa...nice non-defensive answers

[budster101]

I had already posted this...

Originally posted by budster101:
That being said..

I've just found out that the GOP talking points memo is for real and this has greatly influenced my oppinion on this topic.

It tells me the following may be true as well.

- The list sale was influenced in some way by this
- The Shindler's knew about this and supported it, or
- they were just pawns in this agenda.

Either way, I feel sorry for all parties involved.

--

When he had posted this garbage...

Just want to make sure I'm clear on a few things:

1.) If I donate to any charitable organization, I should expect them to sell my name to every spammer they can find, and furthermore expect that they'll be very enthusiastic while they do it. Correct? I'm just confused about something....do they laugh like villains while they do it, or is it more of a cold-businesslike expression on their face?

2.) "Greenpeace is a dispicable organization."

Are all organizations whos members give their time and money to a cause they feel is important "dispicable", or is it just Greenpeace and others that you don't personally agree with?

3.) Assume I was in a horrible car wreck. I just want to be sure, Budster, that 5 months after the accident I AM IN FACT allowed to go rob the person's house who rescued me from my burning vehicle to in order to pay my medical bills. Can you confirm this for me?


A pre-emptive thanks for your responses to my queries, Budster. You really seem to have things figured out, and I trust your instincts about what is just, noble, and proper.

Do you think he deserves any answers to these idiotic questions?
Did you read them?

[Randman]

This sums up the thread nicely.

[Garage81]

they might need money, but that's kind of a stab in the back of their "supporters" as far as im concerned.

n:

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally posted by goMac:
The events that surrounded the issue were based on her death. If it wasn't for her death, the situation wouldn't exist. If the situation didn't exist, they wouldn't have gotten the list. If they didn't have the list, they couldn't sell it. Therefore they are selling her death. Nice caring innocent parents they are.

I could argue that they didn't create the situation. The husband did.

[ghporter]

Originally posted by mitchell_pgh:
I could argue that they didn't create the situation. The husband did.

?!?! You'd be wrong. Court after court agreed that her wishes were NOT to be kept alive in a vegitative state. The PARENTS were the ones that fought their own daughter's wishes.

[Ghoser777]

Originally posted by budster101:
Riiiiigggghhhhttttt....

Uhmmm... well, since we all got on the "proof" bandwagon from before, I call your bluff - show me the evidence... or do you just not like them?

[lurkalot]

Originally posted by zigzag:
No, thank you for pointing that out. It's a minor point, but I shouldn't have overlooked it. Wolfson's status ended up being moot but his report is easily the most useful single document aside from the trial court's order.

It probably didn't matter what Michael said - it entered into the equation but the trial court discounted his testimony and relied principally on the testimony of the brother- and sister-in-law (whom I understand was her best friend). That such a simple fact could get completely lost in the Save Terri stampede is regrettable to say the least.

In any other case, the Schindler lawyers probably would have been sanctioned for filing frivolous motions. However, the political climate obviously dictated that they get every conceivable consideration. That's fine, but it illustrates the fact that conservatives and liberals alike will turn to frivolous litigation and government intervention when it suits them.

There's presently a case in Connecticut in which someone showed a terminally ill friend how to use a gun, and the friend later committed suicide (thanks, of course, to the fact that the right-to-lifers won't allow dignified, physician-assisted suicide). The guy was prosecuted for manslaughter. Thankfully, the judge had the good sense to give him probation. I'm totally fed up with right-to-lifers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/08/ny...itchfield.html

Certainly true that all political parties will use whatever suits them in a given situation and that obviously isn't a purely US reality either. This isn't a purely partisan issue.

I've made no secret of the fact that I am an euthanasia and assisted suicide advocate for whom the impact on broader legislation was among the main reasons for my participation in the Schiavo discussions. But -as you know- the Schiavo case wasn't one that ended with death by assisted suicide or euthanasia.

Like you I'm tired of life-at-all costs advocates who for a variety of reasons deny people their autonomy in end of life decisions.

Slightly older case with a slightly different situation posted as another example.
This is a perhaps well known case from France? BBC link for the letter written by Vincent Humbert whose mother resorted to illegal methods to assist him in committing suicide when he was no longer able to do it himself and the law prohibited others from assisting him. Link.

In my opinion it is indeed a different situation, though, from the Schiavo case as is your example. With assisted suicide & euthanasia on one side and refusing further unwanted medical interventions intended merely to prolong life on the other.

Schiavo fell clearly in the long accepted legal category of lawfully refusing further futile care.

Assisted suicide and euthanasia -as you well know- are still illegal almost everywhere.

In my opinion all these options should be available as should medical care -both physical and mental- be available for all people. In principle, preserving life should be the goal of medicine. Not at all cost however and not in every case. Sometimes death is indeed preferred and in the cases involving PVS patients it is perhaps even a technicality to distinguish between cortically dead, brain dead and plain dead.

If there are to be changes in laws I hope they will be towards accepting more patient autonomy and towards realistic evaluations of terminal conditions. Not towards restrictive regulations in line with the ill-defined U.S. "culture of life" agenda that appears to be surging in the aftermath of the Schiavo saga and the death of the Catholic Pope.

[Azzgunther]

Originally Posted by budster101

I had already posted this...

You've spent the entire thread implying that you agree with the sale of the names. You don't get to take the other side of the argument when it's convenient just to make me look uninformed.

Originally Posted by budster101

When he had posted this garbage...



Do you think he deserves any answers to these idiotic questions?
Did you read them?

Rhetorical questions. I don't want answers, I want you to think.

[subego]

Oh god. It's back ALIVE!

[effgee]

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by zigzag

I've been correcting people on the facts of the case for the past month. I haven't been wrong yet.

The parents not only testified that they would not have honored her wishes - they testified that if she developed gangrene, they would amputate her limbs, and if her heart failed, they would perform open heart surgery. This on a women whose brain had liquified. You can read about it in the report of the guardian ad litem who was appointed by Governor Bush and who described the family's testimony as "disturbing."

Do people still wonder why Terri had bulemia?