Contour Enthusiasts Group Archives
Posted By: ODC Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 09:05 AM
http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/
Posted By: Pimpalicious316 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 12:55 PM
LMAO! i honest to God laughed out loud.

~Andrew
Posted By: CarpePoon_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:14 PM
cruel... but hilarious
Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:22 PM
I believe this thread needs to be deleted. Maybe we can do that to you when your brain dead in in her shoes BUTTHOLE!!!
Posted By: Tuned3900SFI Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:23 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I believe this thread needs to be deleted. Maybe we can do that to you when your brain dead in in her shoes BUTTHOLE!!!




Agreed.
Posted By: MxRacer Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:24 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I believe this thread needs to be deleted. Maybe we can do that to you when your brain dead in in her shoes BUTTHOLE!!!





feel free. i'm pretty sure i won't give a [censored].

Posted By: Tuned3900SFI Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:25 PM
Originally posted by dcamero04:
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I believe this thread needs to be deleted. Maybe we can do that to you when your brain dead in in her shoes BUTTHOLE!!!





feel free. i'm pretty sure i won't give a [censored].






.... you gotta point, too y'know.
Posted By: SVTatGT Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:30 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
BUTTHOLE!!!




Wow, i haven't heard that insult in a while. I think it was third grade maybe.
Posted By: Tuned3900SFI Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:30 PM
there was also buttwipe.. I loved 3rd grade.
Posted By: Kokopellian Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:31 PM
Originally posted by LilStripedRocket:
there was also buttwipe.. I loved 3rd grade.




You're forgetting buttmunch to. Oh, and that blog is sadistically hilarious. I'm going to forward it to all my friends/family with like minds.
Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:32 PM
Whatever
Posted By: Pimpalicious316 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:33 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I believe this thread needs to be deleted. Maybe we can do that to you when your brain dead in in her shoes BUTTHOLE!!!




get that stick outta your ass, and then we can talk about deleting topics.

it was a joke laden with sarcasm and 'twisted' humor. not an insult. some people need to relax. what a novel idea that is

~Andrew
Posted By: Tuned3900SFI Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:34 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
Whatever




Your a wiener!

Oh yeah.. buttmunch.

I remember when all the "butt" words transitioned over to "ass" in 6th grade.
Posted By: TaurusKev Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:35 PM
Originally posted by Kokopellian:
Originally posted by LilStripedRocket:
there was also buttwipe.. I loved 3rd grade.




You're forgetting buttmunch to.




Dont forget Bunghole! Ahh, gotta love Beavis and Butthead
Posted By: MxRacer Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:36 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
Whatever





unless you are related to her, or know her personally, i find your comment to be nothing short of public grandstanding. while i don't find the "joke" humorous, there are plenty of other people who aren't famous that could use your support. start there before casting stones.
Posted By: PackRat_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:41 PM
Originally posted by ODC:
http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/





You are going straight to hell for posting that.
Posted By: Pimpalicious316 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:42 PM
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by ODC:
http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/





You are going straight to hell for posting that.




you gonna save him that seat by the aisle up front with ya?

~Andrew
Posted By: Tuned3900SFI Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by ODC:
http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/





You are going straight to hell for posting that.




you gonna save him that seat by the aisle up front with ya?

~Andrew




Laughter is not a sin... but I must laugh at that comment.
Posted By: mbRentalEnvoy Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 03:54 PM
I think this blog is a perfect representation of why her parents should just give up... they've turned poor, defenseless Terry into a political pawn/national laugingstock... its ridiculous
Posted By: Woodencross Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 04:10 PM
Originally posted by mbTDI:
I think this blog is a perfect representation of why her parents should just give up... they've turned poor, defenseless Terry into a political pawn/national laugingstock... its ridiculous




Yeah, it was ALL her parents...

Oh, that's right...Her "guardian"..."Husband?" didn't do any of that...Nope not at all...

I hope you like my sarcasm...

What isn't sarcasm?
This phrase...
This is sick, and shouldn't have been posted...
Posted By: JVT_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 04:14 PM
Originally posted by 99SESPORT:
Originally posted by mbTDI:
I think this blog is a perfect representation of why her parents should just give up... they've turned poor, defenseless Terry into a political pawn/national laugingstock... its ridiculous




Yeah, it was ALL her parents...

Oh, that's right...Her "guardian"..."Husband?" didn't do any of that...Nope not at all...

I hope you like my sarcasm...

What isn't sarcasm?
This phrase...
This is sick, and shouldn't have been posted...




Actually, yes it was the parents. If they would let her pass, none of this would have happened.

-J
Posted By: bigMoneyRacing_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 05:04 PM
Is she dead yet?
Posted By: mbRentalEnvoy Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 05:10 PM
Originally posted by JVT:
Originally posted by 99SESPORT:
Originally posted by mbTDI:
I think this blog is a perfect representation of why her parents should just give up... they've turned poor, defenseless Terry into a political pawn/national laugingstock... its ridiculous




Yeah, it was ALL her parents...

Oh, that's right...Her "guardian"..."Husband?" didn't do any of that...Nope not at all...

I hope you like my sarcasm...

What isn't sarcasm?
This phrase...
This is sick, and shouldn't have been posted...




Actually, yes it was the parents. If they would let her pass, none of this would have happened.

-J




exactly... COUNTLESS court decisions upholding the husband's rights, and yet the parents KEEP going back, going to the media, going to the governor, making a freaking circus out of it... it IS the parent's fault, whether you like it or not.
Posted By: Thinkmoto Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 05:14 PM
Originally posted by Pimpalicious316:
Originally posted by PackRat:
Originally posted by ODC:
http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/





You are going straight to hell for posting that.




you gonna save him that seat by the aisle up front with ya?

~Andrew




LMFAO!!! If Packrat doesn't I will
Posted By: XKontour98 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 05:18 PM
I found it amusing. Seriously some people need to settle down and realize that people are going to take cracks at whatever is in the media.

Though the circumstances are different the concept is the same. You were probably aware of all the Michael Jackson jokes flying around and I'm pretty sure you didnt jump to his defense!

Seriously, pull the undies out of the crack people!
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 05:43 PM
Even worse
http://www.messedup.net/terry/
Posted By: Tuned3900SFI Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 05:48 PM
Now thats terrible.
Posted By: EternalOne Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 06:37 PM
Now perhaps the parents will realize what they've really done "for their daughter" has made her the butt of jokes, and "when will she die" contests. I'm sure that's REALLY what she had in mind for her future. I just went thru this with my father about 1 1/2 yrs ago, and her parents simply make me sick.

E1
Posted By: Kokopellian Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 06:37 PM
I'd bet their taking odds in Vegas on her death. And that's not a joke.
Posted By: MapOfTaziFoSho Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 06:48 PM
Braindead = dead


But modern medicine has other things to say about that...

If you can't bring them anywhere near their former self then why are they kept alive. Honestly this is sick...and I'm sick of hearing about it.
Posted By: XKontour98 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 07:04 PM
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Braindead = dead


But modern medicine has other things to say about that...

If you can't bring them anywhere near their former self then why are they kept alive. Honestly this is sick...and I'm sick of hearing about it.





I agree! Shes never going to be the same and shes as good as dead from the looks of it. Why make her suffer anymore, thats if she can even feel anything. Its just sick and like Pete said I'm so sick of hearing about it! The parents need to let her go!
Posted By: Auto-X Fil Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 07:07 PM
The only thing I am going to say on the subject is this:

If I am ever beyond the ability to communicate my deisre to live, with no reasonable expectation to recover, then my family knows I have no deisre to remain in that state. I belive there is life beyond this one, so a miserable existence here is not something I want.
Posted By: ancientsanskrit Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 07:19 PM
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Braindead = dead





Well, we don't really know that for sure. This goes beyond the scope of science, hence it's more of a philosophy. Her vital status is open to opinion and scrutiny under other tools like religion and faith i.e. what is the abstract definition of death. However, I would be so certain to say braindead=death. If I showed you the EEG readings (brain waves) for someone showing learning through negative event-related potentials, you and the entire medical society wouldn't have a clue what was going on (currently noone has any idea why it occurs or how to explain it). It's an instance where the brain potential shoots up in a split frame that is equal to no activation of learning or activity, but then spikes back to normal excitation. Sorta, like the brain is dead for a split second w/o activity. Hence, there are too many variables to this and really too many unknowns. The degree of physical life form is key in this situation. I'm just giving you some pointers Pete. Anyways, how's school going man? One more month for us!

In regards to the site, I can see it in a humorous light, but it really isn't anything to joke about. However, as the old saying goes, 'to each his own.'
Posted By: timstour Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 07:31 PM
Originally posted by XKontour98:
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Braindead = dead


But modern medicine has other things to say about that...

If you can't bring them anywhere near their former self then why are they kept alive. Honestly this is sick...and I'm sick of hearing about it.





I agree! Shes never going to be the same and shes as good as dead from the looks of it. Why make her suffer anymore, thats if she can even feel anything. Its just sick and like Pete said I'm so sick of hearing about it! The parents need to let her go!




Yeah [puts on flame suit]
I think some politicians want to redefine 'death' to exclude 'brain death', as it might be considered prejudicial to some of their current members......

J/K
Posted By: TheAlmightyMe Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 09:11 PM
Originally posted by timstour:
Originally posted by XKontour98:
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Braindead = dead


But modern medicine has other things to say about that...

If you can't bring them anywhere near their former self then why are they kept alive. Honestly this is sick...and I'm sick of hearing about it.





I agree! Shes never going to be the same and shes as good as dead from the looks of it. Why make her suffer anymore, thats if she can even feel anything. Its just sick and like Pete said I'm so sick of hearing about it! The parents need to let her go!




Yeah [puts on flame suit]
I think some politicians want to redefine 'death' to exclude 'brain death', as it might be considered prejudicial to some of their current members......

J/K




Actually, you aren't too far off. The emergency federal laws instituted around this case, many feel were not meant to save her, or kill her, or do anything about Terri's situation. Many argue that Bush used this case to pull on the Democrats heart strings (aka their poll numbers) to push the new laws through in order to have legal support for the upcomming legal challenges to the Medicare reform he is pushing.

It is truly sad that this woman has become a joke and a political pawn. I can't throw stones at her parents however, as I think many of us here, wether we admit it or not, would probably do much the same (maybe not go as far though) to keep our child alive.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 09:12 PM
Originally posted by TheAlmightyMe:

I can't throw stones at her parents however, as I think many of us here, wether we admit it or not, would probably do much the same (maybe not go as far though) to keep our child alive.



If I had kids, I wouldn't want to put them through that.
Posted By: MapOfTaziFoSho Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 09:17 PM
Originally posted by TheAlmightyMe:
Originally posted by timstour:
Originally posted by XKontour98:
Originally posted by MapOfTaziFoSho:
Braindead = dead


But modern medicine has other things to say about that...

If you can't bring them anywhere near their former self then why are they kept alive. Honestly this is sick...and I'm sick of hearing about it.





I agree! Shes never going to be the same and shes as good as dead from the looks of it. Why make her suffer anymore, thats if she can even feel anything. Its just sick and like Pete said I'm so sick of hearing about it! The parents need to let her go!




Yeah [puts on flame suit]
I think some politicians want to redefine 'death' to exclude 'brain death', as it might be considered prejudicial to some of their current members......

J/K




Actually, you aren't too far off. The emergency federal laws instituted around this case, many feel were not meant to save her, or kill her, or do anything about Terri's situation. Many argue that Bush used this case to pull on the Democrats heart strings (aka their poll numbers) to push the new laws through in order to have legal support for the upcomming legal challenges to the Medicare reform he is pushing.

It is truly sad that this woman has become a joke and a political pawn. I can't throw stones at her parents however, as I think many of us here, wether we admit it or not, would probably do much the same (maybe not go as far though) to keep our child alive.




I would want to remember my child the way she was. Not a helpless vegetable. I think it is pathetic that they have some hope that some divine intervention is going to save her. My friend was in a similar state for 6 months and it was evident he was never coming around. At any rate this should not have gone on for 15 f in years. It is a waste of the families' lives and a waste of money.
Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 10:38 PM
What are you talking about? I can not support those that I know nothing about. My wife works with people like Terri everyday and many of those same people that were given up on now lead productive lives.
Posted By: sigma Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 11:18 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
What are you talking about? I can not support those that I know nothing about. My wife works with people like Terri everyday and many of those same people that were given up on now lead productive lives.




I don't know what you mean by "like" Terri; as no one with no cerebral cortex left is ever going to lead a "productive life", as it is physically impossible to do anything except lie there. Without a cerebral cortex you cannot, and never can, feel, move, or think anything at all. For all intents and purposes, her brain is physically gone. All the important functions that make us who we are can never exist again.

Your wife might work with people "like" Terri in that they're bed-ridden, perhaps comatose, or even brain-damaged, but she is absolutely not working with people that have no remaining cerebral cortex -- at least not working with any that "now lead productive lives".
Posted By: PackRat_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/29/05 11:48 PM
I work with people with no cerebral cortex. We call them Democrats.
Posted By: mmars_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 01:21 AM
Originally posted by ContourKev:
Originally posted by Kokopellian:
Originally posted by LilStripedRocket:
there was also buttwipe.. I loved 3rd grade.




You're forgetting buttmunch to.




Dont forget Bunghole! Ahh, gotta love Beavis and Butthead




Don't forget buttplug, buttpirate, buttcheek boy...
Posted By: ZoomZoom Diva Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 02:29 AM
Personally, I like it. I don't consider it an attack or an insult on Terri. Rather I look at it as satirizing her parents and their supporters who are trying to extract meaning from these random sounds.
Posted By: XKontour98 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 04:28 AM
Originally posted by PackRat:
I work with people with no cerebral cortex. I work at Walmart.




Edited for accuracy!














j/k
Posted By: RT and his SE_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 04:37 AM
Originally posted by PackRat:
I work with people with no cerebral cortex. We call them Democrats.




It's good that you have people that can communicate(that means talk) on your level.
Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 03:07 PM
You need to check your facts. Unfortunately, Terri's true condition will not be determined until after her death. Her brain scans show some fluid in her brain, not complete vegetative state. She does not need life support to keep her going. She only needs food and water. Pretty sad that her "husband" can legally starve her to death.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 03:16 PM
It's dehydrate her to death. But how is it sad? It's sad to keep someone "alive" when all they can do is spasm every once in awhile. Would you really want to "live" like that?
Posted By: mbRentalEnvoy Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 03:56 PM
Originally posted by Zoom Zoom Diva:
Personally, I like it. I don't consider it an attack or an insult on Terri. Rather I look at it as satirizing her parents and their supporters who are trying to extract meaning from these random sounds.





While I think that's a generously deep assessment of the original author's intent... it is a good point.
Posted By: sigma Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 04:33 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
You need to check your facts. Unfortunately, Terri's true condition will not be determined until after her death. Her brain scans show some fluid in her brain, not complete vegetative state. She does not need life support to keep her going. She only needs food and water. Pretty sad that her "husband" can legally starve her to death.




Sorry, my facts are checked rather well, thank you.

In 2000 and 2002 EEGs and CAT scans revealed that Terri Schiavo has no cerebral cortex left. Your cerebral cortex provides all your higher brain functions, including voluntary movement, thought, emotion, pain, everything that makes us who we are as people. Your body can function without one as bodily processes continue just fine (provided someone will feed/hydrate you), as your cortex only provides higher brain functions.

I never said she needed life support, I never said she was in a "complete vegetative state". Her state would actually be described as "persistently vegetative" which cannot be argued legitimately as she quite simply has no cortex left. No doctor has ever been able to describe how someone without a cerebral cortex (a matter that isn't seriously disputed) can actually not be in a persistently vegetative state. This is why her parents have been unable to win any cases.

Now, since you dispute that I don't know the "facts", perhaps you can actually post your own, rather than just claiming that I'm wrong.
Posted By: N-terst8 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 04:40 PM
Originally posted by dcamero04:
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I believe this thread needs to be deleted. Maybe we can do that to you when your brain dead in in her shoes BUTTHOLE!!!





feel free. i'm pretty sure i won't give a [censored].






I didn't read what everyone else said past this point. I LMAO!!!! That was soooo frickin funny!!!

Sorry, I had to say how funny it was. Gotta add that one to the signature... lol.

Steve

EDIT: Too Long.
Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 05:32 PM
I have heard the same reports that you have on CNN and MSNBC and that is the point. You have several different "experts" saying there is no cerebral cortex and some that say that there was a shrinkage in the cortex, but either way there is some major brain damage. I am not disputing the fact that Terri would have some major problems, but she was never given a chance for any rehabilitation. Obviously none of us have first hand knowledge of Terri's case, but the whole point is that we should not think that this case is a laughing matter because we might face this same demise!!!!!!!
Posted By: SVTatGT Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 05:40 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
the whole point is that we should not think that this case is a laughing matter because we might face this same demise!!!!!!!




If I were unfortunate enough to be in her situation, I would not have parents who turn this into a national spectical.

Not to mention the new news that came out yesterday, I feel sorry for her parents that they have to go through this, but they are ass holes...


Parents selling names and information of financial supporters
Posted By: EternalOne Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 05:57 PM
Quote:

She does not need life support... She only needs food and water




Hahahaha... I love the irony of that.

"Its not life support, we just have to give it to her to keep her alive!"

E1
Posted By: sigma Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 07:15 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I have heard the same reports that you have on CNN and MSNBC and that is the point. You have several different "experts" saying there is no cerebral cortex and some that say that there was a shrinkage in the cortex, but either way there is some major brain damage. I am not disputing the fact that Terri would have some major problems, but she was never given a chance for any rehabilitation. Obviously none of us have first hand knowledge of Terri's case, but the whole point is that we should not think that this case is a laughing matter because we might face this same demise!!!!!!!




I tend to not watch mainstream news, actually. In fact I couldn't tell you the last time I watched CNN, MSNBC, or even FoxNews. My information is from the court documents, transcripts, and rulings of the previous cases. No expert has ever attempted to seriously argue that she has any remaining cerebral cortex left in court, not even those appointed by the Schindlers. The point is virtually unargued. Only those that appear on TV appear to be attempting to make that point.

And "never given a chance for rehablitation"? She spent over 5 years with the best doctors in the US for treatment. Her husband even had her taken to California for rehabilitation with a particular specialist for a long period of time. It was only after no progress at all was being made that further tests were done and found that her cerebral cortex was virtually non-existent, and by 2000 was entirely gone.
Posted By: Tom Thumb Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 07:21 PM
It seems like starving her to death is cruel but I guess there is no good way to die.
Posted By: XKontour98 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 08:03 PM
Originally posted by Th_m_s:
It seems like starving her to death is cruel but I guess there is no good way to die.





I agree, but I wonder if she can even feel it? I sure hope not for her sake!
Posted By: todras_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 08:11 PM
Originally posted by XKontour98:


I agree, but I wonder if she can even feel it? I sure hope not for her sake!




She can feel pain.
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 08:19 PM
Originally posted by kontour_sev6:
I have heard the same reports that you have on CNN and MSNBC and that is the point. You have several different "experts" saying there is no cerebral cortex and some that say that there was a shrinkage in the cortex, but either way there is some major brain damage. I am not disputing the fact that Terri would have some major problems, but she was never given a chance for any rehabilitation. Obviously none of us have first hand knowledge of Terri's case, but the whole point is that we should not think that this case is a laughing matter because we might face this same demise!!!!!!!






The MRI scan is pretty self-explanatory. I can't see how any neurologist can argue otherwise.

About the link, yeah it's pretty mean -- but common, it is pretty funny.

If Terri were my daughter, I would have preferred she be remembered as:


instead of:


Her parents need to let go. Their daughter died 10 years ago.
Posted By: EternalOne Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 08:45 PM
Originally posted by todras:
She can feel pain.




And you know this, how? Most medical professionals that I spoken with have stated that she does not. One of the most simple tests performed on a person in this state is the pain and reflex tests. That's kind of like the "she must be so hungry" argument, she simply doesn't have any brain activity, therefore she does not feel pain, nor hunger.

E1
Posted By: Pre98 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 09:06 PM


What a shame
I can see why her parents do not want to let her go from just looking at this picture. It's tough saying goodbye to someone for the last time at their funeral. Saying goodbye by the will of your hand gives you the option to do what you want, and perhaps for a short time it would "help" the grieving process.

But if you see where I'm going with this, doing that only makes it worse. The person they were will never be again.

Living up to your modern humane instincts and pulling the plug for someone you know is gone, is perhaps the best way for your "sustained" loved one to go.

The other half of the battle is ACCEPTANCE, in which many of us personally know is the hardest thing to do.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 09:13 PM
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by XKontour98:


I agree, but I wonder if she can even feel it? I sure hope not for her sake!




She can feel pain.



I don't know if she can feel it if you hit or something, but I doubt it. From all I've heard though, she almost definitely can't feel hunger,etc.

And again, it's dehydration not hunger that will let her pass on.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 09:16 PM
Originally posted by Pre98:
I can see why her parents do not want to let her go from just looking at this picture. It's tough saying goodbye to someone for the last time at their funeral. Saying goodbye by the will of your hand gives you the option to do what you want, and perhaps for a short time it would "help" the grieving process.



It shouldn't be about what the parents or any other family want. The family would be doing quite the disservice to her (if she in fact did not want to continue like this) if they want to keep her alive just to postpone their inevitable grief. That would be quite cruel.

This is about what Terri wants. Unfortunately, her wishes were never made clear, which is why this story is anywhere near the news. I have a hard time believing Michael Schiavo, and I have a hard time believing the parents actually think they're acting in Terri's best interests.

EDIT: I just looked at the 'blog', and it's quite disgusting. I would expect all members of the PC left wing to condemn this, but my gut feeling tells me they'll be MIA.
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 09:25 PM
Originally posted by ODC:


The MRI scan is pretty self-explanatory. I can't see how any neurologist can argue otherwise.



Hell, she should be up and doing jumping jacks with that brain scan!!

Have you seen Packrat's?
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 09:53 PM
Originally posted by Davo:


EDIT: I just looked at the 'blog', and it's quite disgusting. I would expect all members of the PC left wing to condemn this, but my gut feeling tells me they'll be MIA.




Holy [censored].

Does everything have to be black and white with you ?

It's dark humour, its a 'funny', you know -- laugh ?

Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 09:59 PM
I have a pretty wide-ranging sense of humor, but I can't dig up any hilarity in that blog.
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:05 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
I have a pretty wide-ranging sense of humor, but I can't dig up any hilarity in that blog.




Then maybe you need to replace your tampon ?
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:06 PM
Wow, your sense of funny is eclipsed only by your maturity.
Posted By: svt4stv Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:14 PM
Originally posted by spgoode:


Have you seen Packrat's?





Bwahahaha! uh-oh....
Posted By: ZoomZoom Diva Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:23 PM
Originally posted by todras:
Originally posted by XKontour98:


I agree, but I wonder if she can even feel it? I sure hope not for her sake!




She can feel pain.




While this is doubtful at best, they are giving her morphine as a precaution to ensure she is not.

On the subject of an autopsy telling the story... I have read several cases which state an autopsy cannot tell the difference between minimal consciousness or a vegatative state. It is a purely clinical diagnosis.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:39 PM
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:47 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).




Did you fail comprehension or something ? And thus you need to just talk nonsense and throw in left wing liberal [censored] every now and then ?

Terri = house plant

Pope = living human

Does that get the point across ?
Posted By: SVTatGT Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).




You are [censored] retarded
Posted By: Pre98 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:53 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Pre98:
I can see why her parents do not want to let her go from just looking at this picture. It's tough saying goodbye to someone for the last time at their funeral. Saying goodbye by the will of your hand gives you the option to do what you want, and perhaps for a short time it would "help" the grieving process.



It shouldn't be about what the parents or any other family want. The family would be doing quite the disservice to her (if she in fact did not want to continue like this) if they want to keep her alive just to postpone their inevitable grief. That would be quite cruel.




Sorry Davo, I didn't really make that a clear statement. I'm not for doing that action at all, it's that obsessive/posessive people are; and they re the ones who need to actually deal witht he problem instead of running away. Know what I mean?
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:53 PM
Originally posted by ODC:
Did you fail comprehension or something ? And thus you need to just talk nonsense and throw in left wing liberal [censored] every now and then ?

Terri = house plant

Pope = living human

Does that get the point across ?



Holy [censored].

Does everything have to be black and white with you ?

It's dark humour, its a 'funny', you know -- laugh ?
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:55 PM
Originally posted by SVTatGT:
You are [censored] retarded



Did I touch a nerve? Usually when you dig this deep into your intellect, it's only because something really irked you.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:56 PM
Originally posted by Pre98:
Sorry Davo, I didn't really make that a clear statement. I'm not for doing that action at all, it's that obsessive/posessive people are; and they re the ones who need to actually deal witht he problem instead of running away. Know what I mean?



Yeah I know. I made the point because the argument has been taken to that point, that Terri should be kept alive for her parents. I didn't mean to imply that you were making that point.
Posted By: SVTatGT Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:57 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by SVTatGT:
You are [censored] retarded



Did I touch a nerve? Usually when you dig this deep into your intellect, it's only because something really irked you.




No, not particularly. However, that was honestly one of the worst analogies I have ever heard, and I particularly don't think you can actually think that was a good paralell. However, if you do believe that those two situations are simular, then we can debate the merits of that argument...
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 10:58 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by ODC:
Did you fail comprehension or something ? And thus you need to just talk nonsense and throw in left wing liberal [censored] every now and then ?

Terri = house plant

Pope = living human

Does that get the point across ?



Holy [censored].

Does everything have to be black and white with you ?

It's dark humour, its a 'funny', you know -- laugh ?




Oh please. The difference is you really do believe the left-wing is one giant organization that is destined to destroy all your ideals and make your life a living hell.

No really, that vagina of yours is really getting sandy.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:02 PM
Originally posted by SVTatGT:
No, not particularly. However, that was honestly one of the worst analogies I have ever heard, and I particularly don't think you can actually think that was a good paralell. However, if you do believe that those two situations are simular, then we can debate the merits of that argument...



It wasn't an analogy. I was just saying, if it's so wonderful to be starved and dehydrated to death, then people should be upset if the pope doesn't get to live in that joy.

My point is that it's absurd to think that dehydration and starvation are pleasant situations.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:02 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).



Ignoring the stupid pope statement. The "kill terri" crowd doesn't think she is peaceful or comfortable right now. They think she will be when she passes. She's been uncomfortable for the past 15 years maybe. I think she's just been a shell of somebody that has already died for the past 15 years. No uncomfortable or comfortableness.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:03 PM
Originally posted by ODC:
Oh please. The difference is you really do believe the left-wing is one giant organization that is destined to destroy all your ideals and make your life a living hell.



Not really. I just like pointing out the cases that make them out to be true ass clowns. That's what got you and SVTatGT so perturbed by what I said.

Originally posted by ODC:
No really, that vagina of yours is really getting sandy.



This will get you warned by Trapps. Hope you don't have one or you will be banned.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:05 PM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Ignoring the stupid pope statement. The "kill terri" crowd doesn't think she is peaceful or comfortable right now. They think she will be when she passes. She's been uncomfortable for the past 15 years maybe. I think she's just been a shell of somebody that has already died for the past 15 years. No uncomfortable or comfortableness.



No. Michael Schiavo was talking about how painless of a death starvation and dehydration is. This sentiment has been widely echoed by those on that side.
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:10 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Not really. I just like pointing out the cases that make them out to be true ass clowns. That's what got you and SVTatGT so perturbed by what I said.




I really couldn't care less about what you said. I laugh at jew jokes (as horrible as they are) and I posted the link that OFFENDED YOU for goodness sakes. So stop trying to be something you aren't. As if you could really offend me

The only thing that offended me is your stupidity and that you taint the thread with it.
Posted By: SVTatGT Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Davo:

Not really. I just like pointing out the cases that make them out to be true ass clowns. That's what got you and SVTatGT so perturbed by what I said.




Last time I checked I wasn't a liberal, so pointing out cases where the left is retarded is ok in my book. What got me perturbed was the ignorance of the statement. And since when did this become a left vs. right issue. Jessie Jackson came out yesterday in favor of reinserting the feeding tube, does that make him a conservative??
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:18 PM
Originally posted by ODC:
I really couldn't care less about what you said. I laugh at jew jokes (as horrible as they are) and I posted the link that OFFENDED YOU for goodness sakes. So stop trying to be something you aren't. As if you could really offend me



Oh, that didn't offend me. I said it wasn't funny, and that offended you. The amount of humor one finds in such things is indirectly proportionate to the amount of their intellect.

If you're sense of humor is so grand, why didn't you find my comment on the pope funny?
Posted By: ODC Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:20 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
If you're sense of humor is so grand, why didn't you find my comment on the pope funny?




Here's a tip:

"Turn down the suck, needs more funny".
Posted By: ZoomZoom Diva Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:22 PM
Check this from the Minnespolis Star-Tribune...

Victor M. Sandler: Few patients long to die attached to tubes
Victor M. Sandler
March 25, 2005


Yes, as a practicing geriatrician and signer of hundreds of death certificates in my 30 years of medical practice, I'm absolutely certain that it's true: You are going to die.

But maybe there is hope, not from medical science, but from our politicians. I've seen the news reports; it's fantastic, the Bush administration is establishing a "Culture of Life."

Maybe this means that the next time we invade a country we will cut the loss of innocent civilian life to less than the 100,000 or so who died in the Iraq war. Maybe it means the Bushies have changed their minds and want to restrict automatic weapons sales in the country. Or perhaps even decided to restrict foreign arms sales (we are the biggest sellers in the world). Or maybe they've decided to provide health insurance for all children.

But we all know better than that.

The "Culture of Life" the Bush administration speaks of repeatedly in recent days has to do with saving the life of Terri Schiavo. They know that keeping this severely brain-damaged woman alive by mandating ongoing tube feeding is certainly a pro-"Culture of Life" stance.

As a geriatrician who has cared for thousands of living and dying patients, I'm puzzled. Because overwhelmingly when I have discussions with my patients, they do not want tube-feeding used to prolong their lives if disability makes it impossible for them to take food and liquid by mouth. They (both Republican and Democratic patients, I'm sure) seem to understand that dying will be the last chapter of their life. Most people want to die at home and not attached to tubes.

What "Dr. Bush" doesn't understand is that dying is part of life. As a person of faith, I believe in the ongoing survival of the spirit after death. As a physician and a person of faith, I cherish life and in each life is hidden the image of our creator (that means God, to you atheists out there.)

But God made life finite. My supposition is that this gives life a value and richness it might not otherwise have.

I also believe that God is loving and compassionate and allows the passage from life to death to be peaceful. As a physician who has cared for hundreds of dying patients, including my mother, my faith in God has been enriched by my personal and professional experience of watching life as we know it end.

Unfortunately most people -- including most physicians -- have little or no experience with caring for people who are very disabled and dying or terminally ill and dying badly.

I and similar physicians and nurses who routinely care for dying patients will tell you that the process in no way resembles the "starve to death" battle cry heard from politicians. People who are dying develop an "anorexia of dying." They lose their desire for food and fluids and can be comforted easily by the hospice team and a properly guided family.

You have probably inferred from my words that I believe Karl Rove's talking point "Culture of Life" somewhat disingenuous. But in fact, as a physician and a person of faith, I find it hypocritical.

So, Mr. Bush, next time your team comes up with a talking point, don't lie to me. It is wrong to lie; it says so in the Ten Commandments. The vast majority of reasonable people don't want their lives continued by tube feedings if they are severely disabled. So please don't refer to your position as a "Culture of Life." Call it a culture of sound-bite manipulation, political deceit, or an extension of suffering; then you would be honest.

Victor M. Sandler, a physician specializing in internal medicine and geriatrics, is cochair of the Fairview University Bioethics Committee.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:23 PM
Originally posted by SVTatGT:
And since when did this become a left vs. right issue.



Since Day One. It has made strange bedfellows though, with Jesse Jackson on the 'other side' for once.
Posted By: sigma Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:23 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Ignoring the stupid pope statement. The "kill terri" crowd doesn't think she is peaceful or comfortable right now. They think she will be when she passes. She's been uncomfortable for the past 15 years maybe. I think she's just been a shell of somebody that has already died for the past 15 years. No uncomfortable or comfortableness.



No. Michael Schiavo was talking about how painless of a death starvation and dehydration is. This sentiment has been widely echoed by those on that side.




Well consider that without a cerebral cortex she can't feel pain, I find it hard to believe she's any more pain today than she was 2 weeks or 2 years ago, myself. Granted I also don't believe she's any more "peaceful" either, since without a cerebral cortex one has neither the ability to feel the pain nor the ability to feel any sort of emotion, which I imagine being "peaceful" would qualify as.

So, personally, I find both sides of that particular argument to be rather ignorant of the facts.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:25 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Ignoring the stupid pope statement. The "kill terri" crowd doesn't think she is peaceful or comfortable right now. They think she will be when she passes. She's been uncomfortable for the past 15 years maybe. I think she's just been a shell of somebody that has already died for the past 15 years. No uncomfortable or comfortableness.



No. Michael Schiavo was talking about how painless of a death starvation and dehydration is. This sentiment has been widely echoed by those on that side.



Yeah. From what I gather, it is pretty painless. The Pope is not brain dead and his nasal feeding tube is keeping him alive rather than keeping a shell of a once alive person going.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:31 PM
Originally posted by sigma:
Well consider that without a cerebral cortex she can't feel pain, I find it hard to believe she's any more pain today than she was 2 weeks or 2 years ago, myself. Granted I also don't believe she's any more "peaceful" either, since without a cerebral cortex one has neither the ability to feel the pain nor the ability to feel any sort of emotion, which I imagine being "peaceful" would qualify as.

So, personally, I find both sides of that particular argument to be rather ignorant of the facts.



Michael was addressing dehydration and starvation in general, so the pope still qualifies for that peaceful and pleasant death. My point is not that the pope should be starved, but that Michael Schiavo was saying something ridiculous in an attempt to sensitize the public to his wife's horrifying circumstance.

I'll have to consult my bookshelves to see if the cerebral cortex is the only source of pleasure and pain. My memory of my biopsychological training hints otherwise, but I'm uncertain.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:34 PM
O yeah, I'm sure Michael was saying that we can all starve or be dehydrated and not feel it. I think you just interpreted it that way. He's no doctor and is dealing with a lot now, but I reckon he should have worded it better for you Davo.
Posted By: Pete D_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:45 PM
I think in a way it is ironic that the religious right wants to keep her alive, it sure sounds like it is god will that she is destined to pass on.

I have told my family that if I am ever in any kind of vegitative state, to let me go, I'd rather be remembered (and remember) living life happily than being on life support.
Posted By: m!key Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/30/05 11:48 PM
i think her family is being very selfish. they are keeping her in this hell and have been for 15 years. why, if they loved her, wouldnt they let her go to be with god? does her family believe in god? and if they do, dont they know that she belongs with him?
Posted By: SVTcontourSVT Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 12:00 AM
Originally posted by mikey boy:
i think her family is being very selfish. they are keeping her in this hell and have been for 15 years. why, if they loved her, wouldnt they let her go to be with god? does her family believe in god? and if they do, dont they know that she belongs with him?




Seriously, I couldent possibly think of somthing worse then seeing your own child like that everyday. That would be horrible. Just let the poor woman move onto a better place.
Posted By: ScottK Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 12:02 AM
Originally posted by Davo:

Michael was addressing dehydration and starvation in general, so the pope still qualifies for that peaceful and pleasant death. My point is not that the pope should be starved, but that Michael Schiavo was saying something ridiculous in an attempt to sensitize the public to his wife's horrifying circumstance.

I'll have to consult my bookshelves to see if the cerebral cortex is the only source of pleasure and pain. My memory of my biopsychological training hints otherwise, but I'm uncertain.




Damn dude - she has no cerebral cortex left. You could let rabid wallabees trample her to death and she would still die peacefully!

The pain signals may still be present, but there is just nothing there to process them. Remember pain is just a very very very small electrical impulse going to the brain - it's the brains processing that makes it hurt.

Does Terry feel pain

Posted By: TGO Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 02:03 AM
Originally posted by ODC:
http://durrrrr.blogspot.com/






oh my...i think i just peed a little!
Posted By: TBoomer Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
O yeah, I'm sure Michael was saying that we can all starve or be dehydrated and not feel it. I think you just interpreted it that way. He's no doctor and is dealing with a lot now , but I reckon he should have worded it better for you Davo.



Yeah! He's got a wedding to plan! Poor guy!
While I'm officially "on the fence", I can't help but loathe Michael Sciavo.
Posted By: Wien_Sean Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 10:44 AM
Originally posted by Davo:
I have a pretty wide-ranging sense of humor, but I can't dig up any hilarity in that blog.




I hate to say it, but I agree with davo....

I don't think the blog is offensive, I am not part of the what davo calls the "PC left", seems to be a contradiction in terms. I mean the left is supposed to be liberal but they are limiting them selves by what is proper or ploitically correct, that seems conservative to me. Anyway, never the less I just didn't find it funny.
Posted By: Wien_Sean Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 10:47 AM
Originally posted by Davo:
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).




Can we remove your feeding tube also because that was the most brain dead comment I've read in a while.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 04:47 PM
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
Originally posted by Davo:
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).




Can we remove your feeding tube also because that was the most brain dead comment I've read in a while.



It was obviously too complicated for you to get the real meaning of.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:39 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Wien_Sean:
Originally posted by Davo:
Since the pope has recently had a feeding tube inserted, I've been expecting the left and Michael Schiavo to protest, on the basis that the pope's physicians are denying him the type of euphoria that Terri is experiencing right now. (According to the 'kill Terri' crowd, Terri is very peaceful and comfortable right now).




Can we remove your feeding tube also because that was the most brain dead comment I've read in a while.



It was obviously too complicated for you to get the real meaning of.



No you just are trying to make a point that can't be made with your example. Pope is alive, Terry was brain dead and now is dead.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:42 PM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
No you just are trying to make a point that can't be made with your example. Pope is alive, Terry was brain dead and now is dead.



Terri was dead all this time? That's news to me. I wonder what all this debate was about then.
Posted By: 18psi2300 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:47 PM
Yes Terry has been dead all this time...it's just her body kept working.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:51 PM
Wow...you guys like to keep redefining life whenever it's convenient. For people who are afraid of religion, you sure like to play God.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:54 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
No you just are trying to make a point that can't be made with your example. Pope is alive, Terry was brain dead and now is dead.



Terri was dead all this time? That's news to me. I wonder what all this debate was about then.



Terry was BRAIN DEAD. You left that part out. Sure wasn't news to anyone else.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:57 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Wow...you guys like to keep redefining life whenever it's convenient. For people who are afraid of religion, you sure like to play God.



Not sure if you're counting me in that statement but I'm not afraid of religion. I do believe in God. It's not redefining life, but being brain dead for 15 years is pretty much dead. Keeping a body alive isn't really living now is it? So (assuming a body would keep working without a brain at all) if I remove somebody's brain but keep their body alive with machines or whatever, is that life to you Davo? Think about it.
Posted By: Steeda. Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 05:58 PM
in case you missed it from the other Thread!
this is my thoughts about her death/situation



Good! Seriously its about time!

I don't have to give a reason to back up my statement but it you can't move talk or eat on your own. then you shouldn't exist in my world. Period!!!!!!! This is something that should have happened about 15 years ago
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:11 PM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
So (assuming a body would keep working without a brain at all) if I remove somebody's brain but keep their body alive with machines or whatever, is that life to you Davo? Think about it.



You have your facts wrong. She was not brain dead. The only artificial assistance she had was a feeding tube, because the portion of her brain that would allow her to eat was mush. Her brain still functioned sufficiently to keep her heart beating and her lungs respirating, among other things. She was not on life support, which would make this debate slightly different.
Posted By: Steeda. Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:12 PM
could she feed herself? NOPE

She should have Kicked the bucket long ago!
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:13 PM
Are you aware of how many people there are that can't feed themselves? I wonder if you have any kids, and considered them dead before they could feed themselves.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:18 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
So (assuming a body would keep working without a brain at all) if I remove somebody's brain but keep their body alive with machines or whatever, is that life to you Davo? Think about it.



You have your facts wrong. She was not brain dead. The only artificial assistance she had was a feeding tube, because the portion of her brain that would allow her to eat was mush. Her brain still functioned sufficiently to keep her heart beating and her lungs respirating, among other things. She was not on life support, which would make this debate slightly different.



Ok she was "PART" brain dead. She couldn't feed herself, she couldn't move other then twitching and blinking. Yes her brain was able to keep her heart beating and lungs going. That's about it. She was brain dead and the debate doesn't change at all. She couldn't do anything other than have heart and lungs going (which yes technically is being alive, but barely and who wants to "live" like that) and after this long of a time would never be able to function again.

Tell me davo, what is your reasoning that someone should be kept "alive" on feeding tubes for longer than she was?
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
and who wants to "live" like that)



Who knows? We don't know that Terri didn't want to live like that, and it's certainly not your call or anyone's call.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Tell me davo, what is your reasoning that someone should be kept "alive" on feeding tubes for longer than she was?



My reasoning is that we don't know what Terri wanted. She was certainly within her rights to desire to be kept alive, and also such to desire no life assistance. But because you don't think someone should live like that doesn't mean they can't.

I've said it a bajillion times, there would be no debate had Terri's wishes be certain. I have no problem with someone opting to die under these circumstances, but we aren't certain Terri did.
Posted By: zgendron_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:34 PM
Originally posted by Davo:

Her brain still functioned sufficiently to keep her heart beating and her lungs respirating, among other things. She was not on life support, which would make this debate slightly different.




Are you sure this debate would be more different if she was completely brain dead? I think the same people fighting to keep her alive would continue to do so. I haven't heard any reason suggesting otherwise.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:36 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
and who wants to "live" like that)



Who knows? We don't know that Terri didn't want to live like that, and it's certainly not your call or anyone's call.

True, sorta. In cases like this it is the husband's choice, the parents wanted to fight it. Which is their right, although I think they were being selfish.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
Tell me davo, what is your reasoning that someone should be kept "alive" on feeding tubes for longer than she was?



My reasoning is that we don't know what Terri wanted. She was certainly within her rights to desire to be kept alive, and also such to desire no life assistance. But because you don't think someone should live like that doesn't mean they can't.

I didn't decide the case. The judges did. I don't really see what you're arguing. It had to be decided one way or the other. Judges went with the husband's choice, as he should most likely know her wishes. Would it have been better to keep her on a feeding tube not knowing if she would want to be on it or not?

I've said it a bajillion times, there would be no debate had Terri's wishes be certain. I have no problem with someone opting to die under these circumstances, but we aren't certain Terri did.



Yeah. We're not certain Terri did. Chances are she did just because hardly anyone wants to "live" like that. In any case, the decision was made by the husband and upheld by the courts. So what is the problem?
Posted By: Steeda. Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:51 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Are you aware of how many people there are that can't feed themselves? I wonder if you have any kids, and considered them dead before they could feed themselves.




Ok if your over what 2 years old and you can't feed yourself then you need to leave my world!

And For the people in there teens, 20's, 30's ect ect who can't feed themself then they need to leave also.. thats why this earth has way to many people cuase of bs like this
Posted By: zgendron_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:54 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Are you aware of how many people there are that can't feed themselves? I wonder if you have any kids, and considered them dead before they could feed themselves.




Correction, they can feed themselves. You simply put the nipple to their lips. They do the rest, including swallow.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:54 PM
What about old people? If old people can't feed themselves, do they 'need to leave'.

Keep talking, it's entertaining.
Posted By: zgendron_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:56 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
What about old people? If old people can't feed themselves, do they 'need to leave'.

Keep talking, it's entertaining.




I wasn't using that as a defense, merely pointing out where your logic lapses in this instance.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 06:56 PM
Originally posted by zgendron:
Correction, they can feed themselves. You simply put the nipple to their lips. They do the rest, including swallow.



LMAO Nice. I like seeing you guys go in circles like this.
Posted By: Steeda. Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
What about old people? If old people can't feed themselves, do they 'need to leave'.

Keep talking, it's entertaining.




What point do they serve? If you can't support yourself by feeding yourself which is very simple then why are you here? Soo others can take care of you? If you can't eat im sure there is other stuff you can't do like walk? move? talk? ect ect....

Plus I'm glad its entertaining becuase its the truth. ITs called natural Selection! If you can't feed yourself or take care of your self then You should be gone!

If it happened to me i want everyone on ceg to tell them idiots who want to keep me alive be it my kids wife whoever that i want to die.. Soo bring the desert Eagle...


Ohh and on a similar note, Scott Peterson should die the same way as Terri Did.. NO food let him starve to death!
Posted By: Steeda. Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 07:02 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by zgendron:
Correction, they can feed themselves. You simply put the nipple to their lips. They do the rest, including swallow.



LMAO Nice. I like seeing you guys go in circles like this.




He is correct! They do it on there own..
Posted By: 18psi2300 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 07:29 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Are you aware of how many people there are that can't feed themselves? I wonder if you have any kids, and considered them dead before they could feed themselves.



Yes, but babies and old people have a thinking brain! They can feel, think, communicate. Big difference compared to someone without the thinking part of the brain! It's like people comparing this to the pope...he's not brain dead, so theres no comparison. If he turns into a vegetable, with no hope of recovery, pull the plug.
Posted By: 99blacksesport_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 07:30 PM
Originally posted by SteedaSan:

What point do they serve? If you can't support yourself by feeding yourself which is very simple then why are you here? Soo others can take care of you? If you can't eat im sure there is other stuff you can't do like walk? move? talk? ect ect....





I like to think that humans have evolved past the point of letting our weak die off. Aparantly some of us have not yet evolved to walk completly upright yet...
Posted By: bigMoneyRacing_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 07:39 PM
Originally posted by 99blacksesport:
I like to think that humans have evolved past the point of letting our weak die off. Aparantly some of us have not yet evolved to walk completly upright yet...




Um, Beavis, you see anyone living forever?
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 07:44 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by ODC:
I really couldn't care less about what you said. I laugh at jew jokes (as horrible as they are) and I posted the link that OFFENDED YOU for goodness sakes. So stop trying to be something you aren't. As if you could really offend me



Oh, that didn't offend me. I said it wasn't funny, and that offended you. The amount of humor one finds in such things is indirectly proportionate to the amount of their intellect .



Since you brought up intellect, I thought we should disect this statement.

I would understand if you said it was directly proportionate, that would mean there is a direct correllation between detecting humor and intellect.

What does indirectly proportionate mean? Did you mean inversely proportionate? That wouldn't work either.

Here's a true statement: The ability to use language to convey ideas is directly proportionate to ones intellect.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:12 PM
Originally posted by spgoode:
What does indirectly proportionate mean? Did you mean inversely proportionate? That wouldn't work either.




No, I meant indirectly proportionate, but that and 'inversely' are the same thing. You obviously don't understand this concept, or there would be no need to examine what I said. The more humor you find in that 'blog', the less intellect you possess.
Posted By: Pimpalicious316 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:16 PM
not really my area of expertise, but i don't believe indirectly and inversely are the same.

1 entry found for inversely.
Main Entry: vice versa
Part of Speech: adverb 2
Definition: with the order reversed
Synonyms: backwards, contrarily, contrariwise, conversely, inversely, mutatis mutandis, reversed, the opposite way, upside down
Source: Roget's New Millenniumââ??¢ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright �© 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

===============

1 entry found for indirectly.
Main Entry: sideways
Part of Speech: adverb
Definition: to the edge
Synonyms: alongside, aside, aslant, aslope, athwart, broadside, crabwise, edgeways, indirectly, laterally, obliquely, sidelong, sidewards, slanting, slantingly, slantwise, sloping
Source: Roget's New Millenniumââ??¢ Thesaurus, First Edition (v 1.1.1)
Copyright �© 2005 by Lexico Publishing Group, LLC. All rights reserved.

~Andrew
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:34 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
No, I meant indirectly proportionate, but that and 'inversely' are the same thing.




I'm tempted to use this quote in my signature. BTW what kind of person quotes himself in their signature.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:46 PM
Perhaps I should have clarified for the children...'indirectly proportionate' and 'inversely proportionate' are interchangable terms.

I am the type of person that quotes themselves in their signature. These words may educate the people who run onto CEG every time they see a Contour and ask if it was someone here.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:50 PM
I figured it out. Davo just argues to try making himself feel better. He never intends to discuss things in a way that might change his mind or open it to new things. His arguing just leads to him screwing up comparisons and the use of words. I'll let you feel good Davo, I'm outta this. Though one question, do you have a job?
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I figured it out. Davo just argues to try making himself feel better. He never intends to discuss things in a way that might change his mind or open it to new things.



Wow, you're a genius. Though it's not my intention, arguing with people like you does end up making me feel better about myself. I'm not quite sure what you mean about discussing things in a way that would allow me to change my mind, but I usually enter discussions with well-grounded opinions and confidence in those opinions. In fact, it's quite ironic that you bring this up in a Terri Schiavo thread, as I entered this debate with about as open a mind and absence of opinion as I've had in a long time. Read through the various threads and you will see this.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
His arguing just leads to him screwing up comparisons and the use of words.



Like what? If you're talking about indirectly/inversely proporationate, I suggest you read up on how these terms are used outside of high school math class before you comment further.
Posted By: Pimpalicious316 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Perhaps I should have clarified for the children...'indirectly proportionate' and 'inversely proportionate' are interchangable terms.

I am the type of person that quotes themselves in their signature. These words may educate the people who run onto CEG every time they see a Contour and ask if it was someone here.




excuse me but don't even start insulting me with the 'children' comment. you have no right and it is NOT your place to do so. I was simply trying to state that according to a reputable source, those two words are not interchangeable. stay in line and don't drag someone into one of your pety wars who was just trying to help clarify for accuracy.

~Andrew

edit: after re-reading, it appears you were directing that at spoodge or whatever his name is. sorry for the offensive post (if it even considered that). thanks.
Posted By: zgendron_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 08:59 PM
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I figured it out. Davo just argues to try making himself feel better. He never intends to discuss things in a way that might change his mind or open it to new things.




Hold on. Did you come into this discussion with an open mind? I don't see it. This is part of the problem with these "discussions." People are intrenched in their beliefs, and hearing arguments from the other side strictly inflame their posts.


Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
His arguing just leads to him screwing up comparisons and the use of words.




Actually, the discussion about words was not started by Davo.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I'll let you feel good Davo, I'm outta this. Though one question, do you have a job?




Same could be asked about you. (Looks at post count) Of all people, I can't believe you brought this up.

Why did you resort to personal attacks? Does it make you feel better?


Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:00 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
'indirectly proportionate' and 'inversely proportionate' are interchangable terms.



Oh! I get it, this is another one of your jokes. Boy do I feel silly.
Someone with your intellect surely knows that statement is false.
Posted By: Kremithefrog Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:06 PM
Originally posted by zgendron:
Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I figured it out. Davo just argues to try making himself feel better. He never intends to discuss things in a way that might change his mind or open it to new things.




Hold on. Did you come into this discussion with an open mind? I don't see it. This is part of the problem with these "discussions." People are intrenched in their beliefs, and hearing arguments from the other side strictly inflame their posts.

Just because I brought it up in this discussion, didn't mean I was just referring to this thread. Actually I did stay out of all the Terry threads until I had developed an opinion. Once I did step in, if something made me change my mind it would be change. It's happen a hundred times before, so I wouldn't be surprised if something made me change my mind again. But like I said, I waited and just read for a bit and then made a decision.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
His arguing just leads to him screwing up comparisons and the use of words.




Actually, the discussion about words was not started by Davo.

Huh? I know that. The discussion about words was about Davo's use of words that didn't look correct to me either.

Originally posted by Kremithefrog:
I'll let you feel good Davo, I'm outta this. Though one question, do you have a job?




Same could be asked about you. (Looks at post count) Of all people, I can't believe you brought this up.

It wasn't a personal attack buddy, chill out. I just wondered if he had a job. I don't have a job right now. It's not a personal attack. I'm a student (looks at my post count) with too much free time in a town that doesn't have any open jobs. Sorry for just wondering about people. I'll never do it again.

Why did you resort to personal attacks? Does it make you feel better?
Didn't, so no.



Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:06 PM
'Inversely' is the more traditional term, but 'indirectly' started being used because it is the opposite of 'directly', so it was easier to understand the concepts. Again, just because it wasn't used in high school math doesn't mean it's inappropriate.
Posted By: Stazi Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:08 PM
Someone should pull the feeding tube from this thread!

PS - when I saw the thing about the Pope last night I cracked up laughing as I new Davo would be ALL OVER IT!.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:10 PM


If we pull the feeding tube on this thread, it will be allowed to survive another two weeks in peace and euphoria, so why not give it a shot?
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:14 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
'Inversely' is the more traditional term, but 'indirectly' started being used because it is the opposite of 'directly', so it was easier to understand the concepts. Again, just because it wasn't used in high school math doesn't mean it's inappropriate.



indirect : anything other than direct. I took the indirect route to work today.

inverse : opposite

Sorry, but you brought up intellect. Stazi is an engineer maybe he can set you straight.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:19 PM
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by Davo:
'Inversely' is the more traditional term, but 'indirectly' started being used because it is the opposite of 'directly', so it was easier to understand the concepts. Again, just because it wasn't used in high school math doesn't mean it's inappropriate.



indirect : anything other than direct. I took the indirect route to work today.

inverse : opposite

Sorry, but you brought up intellect.



Okay, so 'indirect' means anything but direct. If the opposite of 'inverse proportion' is 'direct proportion', then that would make 'indirect proportion' and 'inverse proportion' the same thing, no? I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you like this, but I guess you forced me to.
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:24 PM
Originally posted by Davo:

Okay, so 'indirect' means anything but direct. If the opposite of 'inverse proportion' is 'direct proportion', then that would make 'indirect proportion' and 'inverse proportion' the same thing, no?



No, indirect is not the opposite of direct.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:30 PM
Originally posted by spgoode:
No, indirect is not the opposite of direct.



'Indirect', according to you, is 'anything but direct'. An inverse proportion is 'anything but direct', given the definition of an inverse proportion. Therefore, 'inverse proportion' and 'indirect proportion' are the same thing.

This is quite possibly the studiest argument I have ever participated in.
Posted By: The Digital Slacker Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:32 PM
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by Davo:

Okay, so 'indirect' means anything but direct. If the opposite of 'inverse proportion' is 'direct proportion', then that would make 'indirect proportion' and 'inverse proportion' the same thing, no?



No, indirect is not the opposite of direct.







I think you guys could have used this picture a while back. Here I was thinking there was some new commentary on her blog!
Posted By: sigma Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:37 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Originally posted by spgoode:
Originally posted by Davo:
'Inversely' is the more traditional term, but 'indirectly' started being used because it is the opposite of 'directly', so it was easier to understand the concepts. Again, just because it wasn't used in high school math doesn't mean it's inappropriate.



indirect : anything other than direct. I took the indirect route to work today.

inverse : opposite

Sorry, but you brought up intellect.



Okay, so 'indirect' means anything but direct. If the opposite of 'inverse proportion' is 'direct proportion', then that would make 'indirect proportion' and 'inverse proportion' the same thing, no? I didn't think I'd have to spell it out for you like this, but I guess you forced me to.




Of course that doesn't make "indirect" and "inverse" the same thing.

It makes them possibly the same thing, as indirect is not always necessarily inverse. So "indirectly proportionate" is not necessarily the same thing as "inversely proportionate" although it can be.

I know you know your fair share of statistics Davo, as do I, and I've got to say that I've never heard the term "Indirectly Proportionate" ever used. And, if I did see it, I would simply assume it meant "not directly proportionate", which does not mean "inversely proportionate", and if they meant inverse, they would have used it.

It's like the common SAT questions -- "If all 'B's are opposite from 'A's, and some 'C's are 'B's, are all 'C's opposite from 'A's.'?

Granted, I do see where you are coming from. In statistics you do not speak in the certainties that "inversely proportionate" would entail. To disprove a hypothesis involving directly proportionate, I do suppose that saying "indirectly proportionate" would be the more correct method. That's not to say that I can recall ever having read it myself (nor does Google find many references to it being used), nor would I use such a term in common conversation simply because it is (purposefully) vague as to your true intention, if you truly do mean inversely.
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:43 PM
Originally posted by Davo:

An inverse proportion is 'anything but direct'



How did you get this mixed up? I'm not going to explain it again.

Originally posted by Davo:
Therefore, 'inverse proportion' and 'indirect proportion' are the same thing.



Someone else please explain this to Davo. I'm worn out and have work to do.

Originally posted by Davo:
This is quite possibly the studiest argument I have ever participated in.



If you could admit you are wrong and you didn't question someones intellect then it wouldn't have happened.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 09:54 PM
Originally posted by sigma:
It makes them possibly the same thing, as indirect is not always necessarily inverse. So "indirectly proportionate" is not necessarily the same thing as "inversely proportionate" although it can be.



Certainly it's not absolute, but for the purposes of my argument, it was. The only absolute in dealing with proportions is that the only one that is neither is 0.

Of course, for presentations, articles, and papers, we used 'inversely', but for common conversation I find it's easier and more understood to use 'indirectly', 'directly'.

EDIT: Check that, we spoke in terms of correlation, not proportion.
Posted By: Davo Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 10:00 PM
Originally posted by spgoode:
If you could admit you are wrong and you didn't question someones intellect then it wouldn't have happened.



I have a personal rule that if I repeat myself more than twice then I can't admit I'm wrong.
Posted By: spgoode_dup1 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 03/31/05 10:02 PM
Originally posted by Davo:
Of course, for presentations, articles, and papers, we used 'inversely', but for common conversation I find it's easier and more understood to use 'indirectly', 'directly'.



Originally posted by sigma:
I've never heard the term "Indirectly Proportionate" ever used. And, if I did see it, I would simply assume it meant "not directly proportionate", which does not mean "inversely proportionate", and if they meant inverse, they would have used it.



Thanks Sigma. Davo must have ignored this part of your post.

Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 04/02/05 04:06 AM
News Flash!!!! This isn't just your world.
Posted By: kontour_sev6 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 04/02/05 09:57 AM
Terry's blog was not funny...this was:
http://www.contour.org/ubbthreads/showflat.php?Cat=&Board=picsvids&Number=893344&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=31&fpart=1&vc=1
Posted By: 18psi2300 Re: Terry Sciavo's Blog - 04/03/05 01:01 AM
© CEG Archives