Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:01, 29 May 2005

Because of their length or pertinency, some or all of the previous discussions on this page may have been archived.

Linking to His Own Site(s)

I picked up on a little bit of that from the Talk page.

Some people here are unbelievable.

Take a look at the Marla Ruzicka Talk: page for some more wingnuttery on parade.

--AStanhope 04:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Automatic GW reverts

he's become quite the verbose and pesky varmint... FuelWagon 02:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Wagon, if you want to impress us with your accomplishments or research in the Schiavo case, post them on the talk page, but unjustified criticism of another's accomplishments makes not your own. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages isn't about impressing people, Gordon. FuelWagon isn't adding links to his site.--Fangz 23:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The infamous non-win supreme court case

One can't help but notice the number of references to GW and his 4-3 trouncing in the Florida Supreme Court. He throws it up at us in nearly every other paragraph:

"...like what I did in court,"

"I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side...,"

"ompare how well I did in court with the lame governor...,"

"I did better than Jeb...,"

"...and let me remind you that I got further than both Conigliaro and Bush combined, in my near win in court...,"

"and let's not forget that I played a central role in the Schiavo case, and, in some instances did better than the Florida Governor in court...,"

"... if my success in court was so great...,"

"...how does everybody think I got to where I am today with my near win in court?,"

"et's not forget that I came closer than the Florida Governor to having saved Terri in court...,"

"ace it: I came very close to winning in court in the most celebrated case of the century...,"

"... the fellow who almost won in court...,"

"...who exactly did better than me in court in trying to save Terri...,"

"...my achievement in court was better than that of the big players...,"

"...he who was not equaled in court in efforts to save Terri...,"

Those are just the ones I could find in a hurry. Almost every editor who has a talk page will have one or more of the same sort of self aggrandizing hooey.

I finally (I wish I had done it sooner) took a look at this celebrated and unprecedented court case and here is what I found (you can see for yourself by going to the Supreme Court Docket Search page and search under SC03-2420):

Gordo filed a motion of habeus corpus and at the same time filed an affidavit of indigency (translation: too cheap to pay the fee). Unfortunately, Gordo didn't bother to find out the proper way to file and the court struck his motion, although they gave him ten days to refile properly. The next day Gordo filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority and an Appendix. The first was stricken because it didn't comply with court rules (a theme that will be repeated).

Almost a month later (and fifteen days late) Gordo filed his amended motion for habeus corpus, an amended appendix, a cover letter, and a motion for time extension.

On 23 Feb, 2005, the court denied the motion for habeus corpus due to failure to comply with the court's directed timetable and struck all related motions as moot.

Then Gordo filed a motion for reinstatement (one day late—what a surprise), which was also a concurrent motion for clarification, both of which were denied.

Gordo filed a motion for a stay pending review, a motion to expedite, and a motion to file electronically (these motions). The court granted the motion to file electronically but denied the other two motions because they had been rendered moot by the denial of the motion for reinstatement.

Gordo then filed a motion for clarification which was stricken as unauthorized.

Now if you had trouble following that, let me help. The court never considered the facts of the motion. They dismissed it as untimely. The only motion they actually considered (other than the lowly motion to file electronically) was the motion to reinstate the motion for habeus corpus. That motion (to reinstate) was the one the court turned down 4-3.

So comparing this case to Bush's appeal to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals, is laughable. It's pure fantasy to draw any comparison at all. Hearings were held and facts were argued in the Bush case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the appeals court. It was Bush's appeal for reinstatement that was overturned 7-0.

For Gordo to trumpet that he got farther or closer than Bush is pure nonsense. For icing on the cake, Gordo uttered this classic, "...but probably they would not have even considered my case..." Hello! They didn't consider your case. It got thrown out as untimely and improperly filed.

I just thought you'd like to know that it is a matter public record that Gordo is a legend in his own mind. Duckecho 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

OMG! that is too damn funny. FuelWagon 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Ongoing efforts on the Terri Schiavo page

Thank you for putting in the energy that I haven't been able to lately. My whole family's been ill. Your attempt to go line-by-line is the best way to go. I just hope the extremists don't unwind it too much.--ghost 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

Palm Sunday rewrite

I understand your concern that the admin's reaction/lack of reaction during the week of the 3/20/05 to various events may not fit well as written. I'm not yet satisfied with it, and I'd like to see if we can tweak it. A statement of fact about the controversy surronding reactions (with link) to both cases fits better in the Terri Schiavo article than it does in the Red Lake High School massacre. In fact, in the RLHS massacre article, the paragraph was removed because the relavence was questioned. I added a link in the References table there rather than reinsert the paragraph. I think the Terri Schiavo article needs to mention something in order to suggest motivations for the extraordinary efforts surrounding the compromise and encouraging the reader to dig deeper. Should this mention the Talking Points memo? Would the RLHS reference make more sense in the context of the memo? Whatever, we should keep things to one or two sentences that encourage research.--ghost 12:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

Talk:Air Force One

You replaced the entire Talk:Air Force One page with just a single subsection thereof. Is that what you intended to do? Kelly Martin 22:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Geez, you're quick. No it wasn't. I don't know how it happened, and I noticed it and fixed it immediately. Duckecho 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)

I watch the recent changes feed for edits that remove over 2000 bytes and investigate them for reasonability. This is especially the case for Talk: pages, which generally should never shrink, except when being archived. Kelly Martin 22:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

I think you ran into the same problem on this page, too. Kelly Martin 01:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, I fixed it. --Viriditas | Talk 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagreements

Dear Duckecho,

I am sorry to have been forced to disagree with you in such a public way. If I could have removed your edits more privately, I would have. I am extremely busy at the moment, preparing for a final assignment, and had intended to contribute little to Misplaced Pages in the next week.

I can guess which editors on the Terri Schiavo page have personal sympathy for Michael Schiavo, and which editors have personal sympathy for the Schindlers. That should not prevent us from working together and discussing our differences, or from producing a neutral article - one which acknowledges the bitter disputes in this case without implying either that Michael lied about Terri's wishes so that he could get the malpractice money, or that he loved her to the end and was only carrying out her wishes. I have many friends in real life who disagree with my personal views. I never quarrel with them.

Regardless of which side I take in the Terri Schiavo controversy, I cannot imagine wanting to make fun of an opponent - especially if my opponent were in the minority group. You may not have thought it through - it may just have seemed funny. I agree that a lot of material on the talk page was irrelevant to the discussion. I know nothing about the other people who contribute to Misplaced Pages. I don't know their weaknesses or their vulnerabilities. I just don't want to take their dignity away.

Duckecho, you can afford to be generous. The majority of contributors to the Terri Schiavo article are on your side. It is unlikely that you will be attacked and ridiculed. You may not feel very kindly towards me, because of my opposition tonight, but I am still going to ask you a personal favour. Please, can you look at your user page and your talk page, and remove anything that you think might wound the dignity of another editor. I am not referring to criticism of other editors. I am referring to jokes that might seem cruel, even if they were not intended in that way.

I don't know what time it is where you are. It's very late in Ireland. I'm going to bed now, so I shall not know until tomorrow whether you have reverted me again, or whether you have decided to show some goodwill. I would urge you to think before your next edit. This is on the same lines as what you wrote on my talk page about foul language (but it's actually more serious) - it's something we shouldn't feel the need to resort to in order to contribute meaningfully to Misplaced Pages.

This unfortunate edit war has already cost me a considerable amount of study time. If you reply to me, I may not be able to reply to you for another week. Good night. Ann Heneghan 02:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Name format

Minor quibble ... yes, the Chuck Yeager and Joe foss pages use the "first, middle, nickname, surname" format, but then again the Bill Gates page uses the "commonly known as" form, and we already got rid of that one. I don't like eaither, but also, 'Terri' isn't really a nickname, it's an abbreviation of 'Theresa'. To me, Theresa Marie 'Terri' Schiavo is ugly ... how about we go with the version we discussed on the talk page? ("Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo")? Proto 15:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case

Mistakes happen, and I'm no stranger to them. For example, just yesterday I mistakenly redirected an article to the wrong page and moved an article instead of redirecting. I was able to fix the former, but now I need the help of an admin to fix the latter. So, you're not alone. I don't think anyone thinks of you as a vandal. --Viriditas | Talk 22:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Look up "supercilious" in the dictionary...

...and I believe you'll find your picture next to the definition. My problem is that I don't suffer fools -- especially arrogant ones -- gladly: what's yours?

You used the form "12 May, 2005" -- with the superflous comma consistently throughout. If you actually had the authority you've assigned yourself -- ham radio, government work, etc -- you'd know that the format you used was, well, wrong. I caught 100% of that point, thank you very much, and if your pride or lack of reading comprehension makes you miss that, I can't really help you any further. --Calton | Talk 13:27, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

"Pat, I'm disappointed in you"

This sort of observation is unnecessary as your approval is irrelevant. Michael's credibility in relating Terri's wishes to be dehydrated to death is at the heart of the Terri Schiavo case. Of course, Michael was believed and the Schindlers were not but doubts about this legal finding are not irrational and remain the "emotional" opinion held by millions. patsw 16:26, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Well, you unfortunately continue to ignore the fact that at trial Michael's testimony was among the least considered; not as to credibility but as to the potential conflict of interest (shared by the Schindlers) raised by GAL Pearse. Most importantly, Michael's testimony was not remotely the only testimony—from the order, "The court took testimony from eighteen witnesses." I'm not implying that they all testified the same way. It merely proves that Greer didn't make his decision solely on Michael's say so. Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders) and did not have the advantage that Greer did, as the order states, "he court has had the opportunity to hear the witnesses, observe their demeanor, hear inflections, note pregnant pauses, and in all manners assess credibility above and beyond the spoken or typed word." Duckecho 18:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"Moreover, that people (even millions of them) have doubts is even more irrelevant than my approval, and is most certainly irrational because they (nor I) were not at trial (and in most cases they haven't even read the orders)" I don't understand your point? Yes, I'll agree that the opinion of the "millions" is irrelevant to the mention of Mike's testimony, but their sentiments, in and of themselves, are not irrelevant, and bear mention. For example, lets see how[REDACTED] treats the Dred Scott v. Sanford court case. See there? The Wiki entry mentions that other people had an opinion, so to speak, in this quote: "It is considered by many to have been a key cause of the American Civil War, and of the later ratification of the Fourteenth, and Fifteenth Amendments..." and then later in the article, under the sub header, "The consequences," we find this quote: "The reaction to the decision from opponents of slavery was fierce. The Albany Evening Journal combined..." eventually quoting from the opinion piece. My point? ALL the facts are relevant to report, and this includes that "opinions" of the masses, be it an opinion on the Scot case -or of the Schiavo case.--GordonWattsDotCom__Florida, USA 22:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)