According to CNN the Florida Legislature has issued a one-time law stating that Gov. Jeb Bush can intervene. Gov. Bush signed the law and now Terri is receiving fluids in preparation for her tube reinsertion. THANKS BE TO GOD!!!!!

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/10/21/coma.woman/index.html

-- Scott (papasquat10@hotmail.com), October 21, 2003

Answers

Thanks, Scott. In this day and age, it is not an exaggeration to say that a miracle has happened! JFG

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

Thanking the government for taking control away from families and individuals? No thanks! Putting yourself in Terri's place, would you honestly say that you have ANY quality of life? After ten years you'd still want people to keep you imprisoned in a lifeless existence? I say let the legal side of it be judged by the courts. The husband has the power of attorney, let him make the call and, if the courts disagree, let the courts say no. The governor has no right to intervene in that fashion. It must be an election year in Florida.

-- Matt Rocush (marocush@yahoo.com), October 27, 2003.

Terry Sciavo is an extreme case. That's where it starts. The extreme cases tug at the heartstrings of, and circumvent both the moral resolve and the rational thinking of the largest number of people. Sure, they say, I can see starving THIS woman to death for the convenience of her husband - but ONLY because she is such an EXTREME case. This is lunacy. The extreme cases lie directly at the top of the slippery slope. Once you cross the line between forbidding the starvation of patients vs. defining which patients may be starved to death, there is no turning back. Once the most extreme cases become subject to execution, it is inevitable that "slightly less extreme" cases will be next. And before long we will have the same situation as in the Netherlands, where elderly patients are terrified to go to a hospital regardless of how sick they are, since they know that they can be legally executed without their knowledge or consent if a doctor determines that their "quality of life" is not worth saving. In a society which does not protect the life of every person, no person is safe.

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), October 27, 2003.

"The husband has the power of attorney, let him make the call..."

You need to review the facts!

The husband has been squandering money which was ordered by the courts to be spent on her habilitative therapy. She receives no habilitative therapy, by order of her husband. He threatens to sue anyone who disobeys his orders.

He has ordered doctors and nurses not to give antibiotics twice when Terri suffered from infections. (Sworn testimony of medical professionals)

He has a "long-time" girlfriend outside of his marriage with Terri, having fathered two children by this girlfriend.

He only began claiming that Terri once said she wouldn't want to live like this, after he was named beneficiary of Terri's million dollar malpractice award, which was placed in a trust fund to finance her rehab therapy. (Remember, he forbids any rehab therapy, even as little as placing a cloth in her hand so that her fingernails don't dig into her palms!) Sworn testimony of her past nurses.

Now, he claims that she would want to die.

He and his adulterous girlfriend stand to benefit financially from her death.

They are willing and even eager to have her starved to death. That type of death is a prolonged torturous death.

She is defenseless.

The husband IS calling the shots.

And look at What he recommending, and How it personally benefits Him, not Her!!!!!

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (flower@youknow.com), October 28, 2003.

Families can no longer be called families if there is no love or compassion. More than quality, it is better to have sound and unstained conscience, and not just like animals able to eat, drink, and fornicate (the present day standard for quality of life I guess). It is a miracle at these time to have a Govt stand for life against all odds. I believe it is God's intervention in reponse to his people's intercession. Praise the Lord!

-- leslie john (leslie_jn@yahoo.com), November 07, 2003.

The fact she is breathing on her own is God's will for her to remain alive. We are not God and neither is her so called husband. Babies and a lot of the elderly cannot feed themselves but does that give anyone the right to end their life by starvation? I have been appalled at this sad situation since the first day I read it. I want to just say I agree with scott thanks be to GOD amen!

-- Patricia (Erica13Z@hotmail.com), November 07, 2003.

Her family is again trying to seek custody of her--the husband sought to bar them from doing this, but the judge allowed them into it (yes, another lawsuit). The story is off the yahoo headlines, or I'd post the link, but it should be on one of the other news networks.

-- GT (nospam@nospam.com), November 07, 2003.

O.k., at this point people generally agree that there's no money left from the malpractice lawsuit, it's gotten gobbled up in care over 13 years and legal fees. What then would her husband's strong motivation to end her life be if it wasn't simply acting in accord with her wishes? To formally get married to "the other woman"? Don't see why, he's already had kids with her and probably lives with her, he can't be THAT concerned with how it will look. Maybe he really is just trying to let her rest.

Oh, and I read in the WSJ that four neurologists have testified that she WAS brain dead. That to me would mean she's probably had a few EEG's to prove it, but then I don't think there's anyone out there really trying to deliver honest and *complete* information to the public.

Frank

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

Frank, wake up and smell the coffee...

O.k., at this point people generally agree that there's no money left from the malpractice lawsuit, it's gotten gobbled up in care over 13 years and legal fees.

WRONG!!! the family has shown time and again that the money recieved in the malpractice suit has not been used in what it was meant to. first off... there is an extreme lack of therapy, which is what the money was placed in trust for. second, if he is using the money for legal fees, he's already abused the money whihc is reserved for her treatment.

To formally get married to "the other woman"? Don't see why, he's already had kids with her and probably lives with her, he can't be THAT concerned with how it will look. Maybe he really is just trying to let her rest.

yes, he has another girlfriend, and children by her. this leads me to wonder, if he was completely devoted to her then why would he have another girlfriend while with his wife? if he was truly devoted to her he would be loyal, sexually and emotionally. if honest he would have sought divorce and been done with the situation. hes grabbing at the money that he CLAIMS isnt there. from someone having an adulterous relationship against his wife, while openly trying to murder her, im not keen on taking his word for it. Oh, and I read in the WSJ that four neurologists have testified that she WAS brain dead.

oh really? brain dead people laugh? do they cry? do they smile when people they know come into the room? NO!!!! shes not braindead at all. thats another lie put forth by the monsterous 'husbands' lawyer. in fact, more therapy could probably bring her back to an even more concious level, but the husband has been denying her therapy for close to seven years.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 09, 2003.

paul,

he's already abused the money whihc is reserved for her treatment.

IS the money reserved for her treatment? Somehow, if the guy had misappropriated funds I think her parents would have had him in court YEARS ago for this, as it's a crime.

yes, he has another girlfriend, and children by her. this leads me to wonder, if he was completely devoted to her then why would he have another girlfriend while with his wife?

Because he's an adulterous dirtbag. BUT, that doesn't mean he isn't trying to do what his wife wanted, and doesn't mean his wife isn't or is brain dead.

hes grabbing at the money that he CLAIMS isnt there

The court could settle this in a heartbeat, and again, if he misappropriated it, he would be showing himself an unfit guardian, and her parents could use this against him. Since they (apparently) haven't, i'd assume he hasn't stolen any of it.

oh really? brain dead people laugh? do they cry? do they smile when people they know come into the room? NO!!!! shes not braindead at all. thats another lie put forth by the monsterous 'husbands' lawyer

No, this was what I read in the WSJ, and was not a quote from her lawyer. I don't know the full details of the case and doubt if you or anyone else in the general public does either. Neither side wants to portray the honest situation.

in fact, more therapy could probably bring her back to an even more concious level, but the husband has been denying her therapy for close to seven years.

Just curious here, do you mean by this that she had 100% appropriate therapy for the FIRST six years of her condition? If so, did she make any significant gains in these six years of therapy? If not, what makes you think that the seventh would be the charm?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 09, 2003.

Paul H, Frank doesn't seem to want to "wake up and smell the coffee." Being in a medical profession himself, he seems to prefer to have a knee-jerk, protect-the-medical-management reaction. The worst thing about that is that he is taking a liberal's pro-death point-of-view on this case, and he is not being faithful to Catholic teaching, which would never permit murder or suicide by starvation/dehydration, not even when a person desires it (and the Schiavos are Catholics). He said, "Maybe he really is just trying to let her rest." How naive is that, referring to an act of homicide as "let[ting] her rest"! The family tried to do everything that they could, but pro-death judges stymied them at every turn -- which is why the situation reached public notoriety. The liberals rightly used to be champions of the disabled and handicapped, but now they have done an about-face and seek to have them aborted or, if born, "euthanized." My recollection is that the 6-year/7-year therapy related thing you and Frank just exchanged is not correct. I believe that I read that Terrie has had no therapy since 1991 (shortly after her disability began), when her husband decided to give up all hope after an initial therapy failure of some kind.

Frank, I believe that you know very little about the case (compared to some of us, who have read a LOT), and you should have kept silent on this topic -- or should have just asked questions. If you want to get educated, go to the sites that are dedicated to the story -- e.g., this one. Also, you can begin to read a series of pro-Terrie articles (start ing today) by a liberal, Jewish-atheist, pro-lifer, Nat Hentoff, who writes for the "Village Voice" (of all things) and the Washington (com)Post.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

John,

I believe that you know very little about the case (compared to some of us, who have read a LOT), and you should have kept silent on this topic -- or should have just asked questions. If you want to get educated, go to the sites that are dedicated to the story -

1. I am asking questions, even in this last post. You haven't answered them. Here's one to start with, from the last post.

do you mean by this that she had 100% appropriate therapy for the FIRST six years of her condition? If so, did she make any significant gains in these six years of therapy? If not, what makes you think that the seventh would be the charm?

2. Now I asked for *unbiased* medical opinion, and you refered me to www.terrisfight.org!! Does THAT sound like anyplace to find UNBIASED information to you? I assume someone on the other side will refer me to www.terri'slawyer'shomepage.com and say THAT is where I should get my info. What specific summary of her medical condition is there that you'd recommend. From where I sit, I haven't seen anyone here showing a profound grasp of her true condition.

Being in a medical profession himself, he seems to prefer to have a knee-jerk, protect-the-medical-management reaction.

You are trying a subtle ad hominem here, and I hope these don't escalate, which would weaken what you are trying to say. I assure you I couldn't care less about anyone in the medical field down there regarding this case, but have yet to hear anyone contradict her being brain dead.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 10, 2003.

to be honest, john,

I believe that I read that Terrie has had no therapy since 1991

i was taking the no therapy in seven years as a quote by the lecherous husband himself. what better way to prove the evil than to take it from the monsters mouth instead of his accusors?

second, the money was reserved for treatment, even the husband claims that. the family has had a lawsuit for misuse of the money for the last seven years, but its still bogged down in court.

finally, frank, you ask if she was even having treatment for six years, and it didnt help, why should it be continued. simple, because God may decide that with enough diligence, love and persistance, prayer and therapy, to bring terry out of where she is. with emotional response we KNOW her soul is still there, she is not just a body that is being kept alive, as the husband wants you to think.

look up some pictures of her, frank, dead people dont smile.

-- paul h (dontSendMeMail@notAnAddress.com), November 10, 2003.

Key: ,. = etc.

The Terri Schindler Life Ribbon Campaign acts as a beacon pointing to Terri's plight. It also acts as lighthouse and gateway to others who already Realize and stand as Witness to Terri's inherent right to life and rehabilitation,. It is apparent that Michael Schiavo, George Felos, Deborah Bushnell and Co. must be bound by laws in order to be forced out of Terri's life. Let us continue to spread the word and take actions,. for Terri.

Juan Schoch e-mail: pc93@bellsouth.net

Help Us Protect And Ensure Life And Liberty For Terri Schindler! Become a Life Ribbon Site

You are encouraged to place a Life Ribbon Campaign banner on your servers and web pages to support/participate in the campaign described on this page at

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

Questions to: pc93@bellsouth.net

Also looking for co-ordinators for Terri Life Ribbon Meet-ups in their particular states.

-- Juan Schoch (pc93@bellsouth.net), November 10, 2003.

Jmj

Frank, who do you insist on making things tough for yourself by saying dumb things? Aren't you ever going to stop doing this?

Last time, I wrote, "I believe that you know very little about the case ... and you should have kept silent on this topic -- or should have just asked questions."
Notice -- either (a) keep silent or (b) just ask questions.

How did you reply? "I am asking questions, even in this last post."
But that's no response to what I just said. Yes, you did ask a couple of questions, but you didn't "JUST" ask questions, as was necessary. From the beginning, despite your basic ignorance of the facts, you spouted out various unjustifiable opinions, on this thread and another. THAT'S why I said that you should have just silently read or just asked questions. (Now do you understand how you succed in perturbing me? You try my patience just like your kids try yours. Why you want to imitate them, when you are with adults, is beyond me.)

Next, you absolutely floor me -- you make my jaw drop -- with this line: "You haven't answered them [my questions]. Here's one to start with, from the last post. do you mean by this that she had 100% appropriate therapy for the FIRST six years of her condition? If so, did she make any significant gains in these six years of therapy? If not, what makes you think that the seventh would be the charm?"

Are you on strong drugs -- or not having enough coffee to keep your mind awake? I specifically addressed that very question, saying that Terrie did NOT have six years of therapy, but only one attempted process during the first year (1990-91, I believe). Moreover, you could have found more specific facts on this topic at the site that I linked for you. Clearly, your complaint is baseless.

Next, you tell a direct untruth by stating this:
"Now I asked for *unbiased* medical opinion, and you refered me to www.terrisfight.org!! Does THAT sound like anyplace to find UNBIASED information to you?"

Are you crazy, Frank? Search this thread, and you will find no request of yours for an "unbiased medical opinion." The fact that you will simply reject, with a wave of a hand, the information found at the linked site just proves to me your pro-death, pro-medical-establishment prejudice. It is disgusting that you would spit upon, as if totally untrustworthy and worthless, the words of Terrie's family, who are fighting for her life -- calling that site "biased." Frank, you really could get hired by the Hemlock League or Dr. Kevorkian's office, I think.

You stated: "From where I sit, I haven't seen anyone here showing a profound grasp of her true condition."

Well if you just "sit," instead of dig for the truth, you will remain ignorant. If you won't dig, then be patient and follow the article series by Nat Hentoff as it evolves. (Did you even bother to read the first article that I linked? I doubt it, from the way you responded.) I'm sure that Hentoff is going to repeat a key fact that has already been published -- something that you should have already read, if you wanted to be so bold as to comment in public -- namely, the recent statement by two or more specialists who have confirmed that Terrie is not brain-dead, is not in the "state" whose name I reject (PVS), and IS capable of being partially rehabilitated.

You stated: "You [John] are trying a subtle ad hominem here, and I hope these don't escalate, which would weaken what you are trying to say."

You're wrong. It wasn't "subtle." It was overt, and with good reason. I reject the commonly held belief that ad hominem statements have no place in arguments. I believe in mixing them judiciously with factual arguments, when I judge that the situation warrants it. I reject your claim that this kind of thing "weaken[s] what [I am] trying to say." What I am saying (not merely "trying to say") stands on its own two feet, regardless of my ad hominems.

For example, last time, I said some things to which you did not respond at all -- because you can't respond to them. Among them is the single most important thing I raised -- the fact that you are trying to push an anti-Catholic way of proceeding (i.e., direct killing of the patient). You cannot support your sinful position, and that's all that really matters to me -- this being a Catholic forum. You can "win" all the "medical" disputes, if you wish -- but you can never win on what matters the most. You cannot prevail over the pro-life, Catholic position that Paul H and I hold.

(Thanks for the clarification, Paul H. The 6/7-year thing makes M.S. look bad enough, though I believe that he is lying about that and that there has been nothing substantive done for Terrie since 1991.)

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 10, 2003.

-- (a@b.c), November 10, 2003.

November 7, 2003
In the Matter of Terri Schiavo:
Most Reverend Robert F. Vasa, Diocese of Baker, Oregon

For Mary and Bob Schindler: ...."Cannot people see that Terri is their baby and that their love for her has a value and that their love tells the world that Terri has great worth? To treat her as if she were already dead is cruel and inhumane. To treat her as if she is dying is likewise ludicrous." Kindest Regards, +RFV

The Catholic Church teaches that hydration and nutrition are simply water and food. These must always be provided as long as the food or water itself or the method of delivery is not unduly burdensome to the PATIENT. There does not appear to be any indication from Terri that the provision or the method of provision of food and water is burdensome to her.

The one 'burden', which so many seem so determined to lift from her, is that one thing that allows Terri to continue to be a living breathing human person, life itself. Life itself cannot be the burden from which we in the Catholic Church seek to deliver the faithful. This is the Assisted Suicide attitude.

Life is a grace and a blessing and yes the living of that life does entail some burdens, sometimes great burdens, but the solution can be neither murder nor suicide - these are offenses against life itself and the Lord who gives it.

Terri is alive. She is kept alive by the same things that keep me alive - Food, water, air. Her disability deprives her of the ability to ingest these things, it does not deprive her of the ability to digest them. She may well die in the future from an inability to digest food but it would be murder to cause her death by denying her the food she still has the ability to digest and which continues to provide for her a definite benefit - life itself.

Kindest regards,

Bishop Robert F. Vasa
Diocese of Baker
Box 5999
Baker, Oregon 97708
(541) 388-4004

[From the www.cogforlife.org site]

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

LOL!

John, I know you've got an axe to grind, but I really DID laugh out loud reading your post from the 10th. This is the part that did it:

You stated: "You [John] are trying a subtle ad hominem here, and I hope these don't escalate, which would weaken what you are trying to say."

You're wrong. It wasn't "subtle." It was overt, and with good reason. I reject the commonly held belief that ad hominem statements have no place in arguments.

Sometimes John, you exceed even yourself.

Vaya con Dios, mon ami,

Frank

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

Jmj

Before idiotically "laughing out loud" again, Frank, you should have stopped to think that I might have a point in stating that "I reject the commonly held belief that ad hominem statements have no place in arguments."

You should have stopped to realize that Jesus, St. John the Baptist, and many other saints and highly regarded Catholics have used "ad hominem statements" through the ages. If you think that every conversation has to go according to "Robert's Rules of Order" or "William F. Buckley's Debating Rules," you've got a lot to learn.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.

Jesus didn't refrain from calling a sinner a sinner, or a hypocrit a hypocrit. But these were not ad hominem attacks. They were simply true, accurate, and just characterizations, and were not generated by Jesus' inability to address the issues presented to Him by these people. Ad hominem attacks are efforts to circumvent the issues at hand by attacking the speaker instead of the issue. An ad hominem attack says, in effect, "there is nothing I can reasonably say that would refute your position, so instead I will try to make you look stupid or irresponsible or untrustworthy, and hopefully people will then doubt your position, even though I myself cannot refute it".

-- Paul M. (PaulCyp@cox.net), November 19, 2003.

John,

Shut up, jerkface!

Is that the kind of reasoned discourse you aspire to?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 19, 2003.

Jmj

Frank, your post proves your stupidity -- if there was any doubt remaining in anyone's mind. Every intelligent person here knows that I don't "aspire" to such "discourse" as you illustrated. But you have to ask me the question!

I agree completely with what Paul M said. What I do is what Jesus did -- namely, to combine (1) "true, accurate, and just characterizations" of people with (2) logically arguing and "address[ing] the issues".

The problem that some people (like you, Frank) suffer is having such "thin skin" that you miss my logical argumentation, focus on the "characterizations," and then mislabel the latter as "ad hominem attacks." Now, since I realized that this was part of your inaccurate vocabulary, I went along with it and said that ad hominem statements have a place in arguments. What I really meant by that was that the kind of "characterizations" used by St. John the Baptist, are OK in conjunction with presentation of facts and logical persuasion. (They were not real "ad hominems.")

Now to the crux of the matter ... I don't defend (and don't use) real ad hominems -- mere insults to "make [someone] look stupid or irresponsible or untrustworthy" so that "people will then doubt [my opponent's] position, even though I myself cannot refute it". I don't get involved in arguments unless I am confident that I can refute the other person's position.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 19, 2003.

Sorry John, it doesn't work that way.

You have interrogated people on the smallest details of their posts for too long to get away with saying "what I MEANT was", it's quite obvious to all that you mean what you say, no more, no less. You earlier said,

I reject the commonly held belief that ad hominem statements have no place in arguments."

NOW you are saying

you miss my logical argumentation, focus on the "characterizations," and then mislabel the latter as "ad hominem attacks." Now, since I realized that this was part of your inaccurate vocabulary, I went along with it and said that ad hominem statements have a place in arguments. What I really meant by that was that the kind of "characterizations" used by St. John the Baptist, are OK in conjunction with presentation of facts and logical persuasion. (They were not real "ad hominems.")

You are lying John. You MEANT you believed ad hominems were acceptable, and now you are trying to backpedal. Just be a man and admit it.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), November 20, 2003.

I don't get involved in arguments unless I am confident that I can refute the other person's position.

Thanks at last, John, for your explanation as to why you won't demonstrate how Traditionalists "disobey" Vatican II.

-- Regina (Regina712REMOVE@lycos.com), November 20, 2003.

FS writes: "You are lying John. You MEANT you believed ad hominems were acceptable, and now you are trying to backpedal. Just be a man and admit it."

Frank, you are one sorry package. (There but for the grace of God go I.)
I do not lie, Mr. Someone. Everything I have ever told you is the truth. Perhaps you hang around with people (in family or at work [e.g., your pro-death colleagues]) who are liars, and you want to project their faults on me. I can't stop you from making a fool of yourself.

"Regina" (whatever her name is) writes: "Thanks at last, John, for your explanation as to why you won't demonstrate how Traditionalists 'disobey' Vatican II."

I will not hold this error against the ex-Catholic "Regina," because she once had enough smarts to stay away from the forum for long periods of time -- and thus did not witness the many times in 2002 (before I gave up on the Schismatic Stooges) that I thoroughly refuted them and "demonstrate[d]" anything and everything necessary -- and far more than they could cope with.
Ever since I realized that they are lost and will never make their way back into Catholicism until they leave the forum, I have simply ignored their asinine demands to see the same things they have already been shown many times. "Regina" will have to read all the old threads that she missed, in order to find the answers.

St. James, pray for us.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), November 20, 2003.

I realized that they are lost and will never make their way back into Catholicism until they leave the forum

?!

-- jake (j@k.e), November 22, 2003.

In case the reply, "?!", indicates, "What the heck do you mean by that?" -- I will explain. [I wondered if my words would go "over the heads" of some people -- especially the very ones who needed to understand it most.]

I wrote:
"I realized that [the Four Schismatic Stooges] are lost and will never make their way back into Catholicism until they leave the forum."

This means ... As long as the Stooges are permitted to remain here, their sinful pride will move them to continue to try to defend their fallacious positions -- thus remaining outside Catholicism.
Staying here keeps their "mouths" open and "ears" closed. It is only when they will be forced to leave the forum that they will feel justly humbled and their "mouths" will be closed -- enough (potentially) to open their "ears" to the Catholic truth and discipline that the Holy Spirit wants to give them. Thus, only by leaving the forum could they ever make their way back into the Catholic Church. Yet another reason for the moderator to make the required move (banning).

God bless you.
John

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

their sinful pride will move them to continue to try to defend their fallacious positions

Do you or have you considered yourself guilty of sinful pride, as it relates to posting in this forum?

I know I have.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 22, 2003.

As long as the Stooges are permitted to remain here, their sinful pride will move them to continue to try to defend their fallacious positions -- thus remaining outside Catholicism.

This overarching prideful mentality of the Stooges is what is being condemned (and must be remedied, since it is destroying the forum and helping to damn their souls). [Right now, we are not discussing specific sins of pride that any individual may have committed. You can start a new thread about that, after you return to Catholicism and regain the right to be on this forum.]

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

Right now, we are not discussing specific sins of pride that any individual may have committed.

It was just a little question, but you have provided the answer I expected, more or less.

after you return to Catholicism and regain the right to be on this forum.

I have no need to "return" to a Faith I never left, and my "right" to be on this forum has not been revoked, to my knowledge, except perhaps in the overactive immaginations of some of the other forum posters.

-- jake (j@k.e), November 24, 2003.

Hi guys,

I'm popping back in, as I do from time to time. I was delighted to see a current thread going on Terri Schiavo, as I haven't heard much on her condition or her cause lately.

But what have I stumbled into?

Could we please keep this thread on topic? It is so very important; a matter of life and death! (Not that perhaps your current squabble isn't eternally important as well, who knows? But it's kind of embarassing to have you duking it out here on this particular thread. Embarassing for me, anyway.)

Pax Christi. <><

-- Anna <>< (Flower@youknow.com), November 24, 2003.