Lash wrote:Nah. You didn't prove anything. If you can read, you can figure it out by yourself.
If not, be wrong.
Oh yeah. Show a demand of mine or be a liar.
Lash,
You are like a 6 year old child that continued to ask for ice cream long after your mother had told you no and then when reprimanded for demanding ice cream you now claim you never demanded it.
The repitition after being told no becomes a demand. A childish demand but a demand.
You are free to disagree with my use of the word "demand" but your actions in wanting us to agree with you have been unreasonable and in my estimation a demand.
You have stated more than once that Michael's words don't count in this case. I don't see any need to repeat them since Keltic and I have both pointed them out. There is only one conclusion based on your words. You don't have respect for the marriage and anything they said to one another. You required proof of Michael telling the truth rather than accepting it. You refused to accept the standard that is normal in these situtations or even address that standard. After being told "no" about your opinion you then want us to admit that your opinion has a valid basis, to concede it. I am sorry. But the constant "no" by many here counts just like the mother to the child in my example above. Your use of the word "concede" implies that we need to "give in" to your desire. That leads me to use the word "demand." Your wanting us to admit that your opinion is valid is a demand that we admit that Michael needed to prove his position without any credible evidence that he was lying. You didn't use the word "demand" but your actions say it all. Your arguments to the contrary are nothing but a childish tantrum.
Or, it represents a different opinion. You and your co-horts seem intolerant of any opinion other than yours. I think it is adult behavior to admit there may be a valid opinion in many cases other than one's own. I see the only tolerance you and your buds are interested in is--someone else's.
LOL!! Do as I say...not as I do. ....your clubhouse motto?
Lash wrote:Or, it represents a different opinion. You and your co-horts seem intolerant of any opinion other than yours. I think it is adult behavior to admit there may be a valid opinion in many cases other than one's own. I see the only tolerance you and your buds are interested in is--someone else's.
LOL!! Do as I say...not as I do. ....your clubhouse motto?
Frankly Lash, I feel I have been quite tolerant of your childish antics. I have taken the time to explain myself. You have done nothing but repeat variations of "Show a demand of mine or be a liar."
I don't recall saying anything like that when I disagreed with your opinion. I never once said if you couldn't prove your opinion that you were a liar. You however have said I have to prove my opinion or be a liar. Who is the intolerant one here?
There are valid opinions other than mine. Those opinions are usually backed up with facts. I accept those opinions as valid and disagree. You however don't seem to have many facts to back up your opinion. You ignore the standards that have existed for hundreds of years. You have presented no real facts to back up your opinion or dispute what others here have said.
I relish those times when someone disagrees with me and can bring facts to the table. It makes for a wonderful experience. I can see exactly how they formed their opinion. The key is that we both need to look at all the facts. If you look at all the facts and form an opinion different from mine that is just fine. I respect that. It means you have examined the facts that I used and rejected them because you felt a different fact was more important. When you ignore facts and refuse to even address my facts then I don't see any reason to accept your opinion as valid.
Try to pay attention--
You said this--
I don't recall saying anything like that when I disagreed with your opinion. I never once said if you couldn't prove your opinion that you were a liar. You however have said I have to prove my opinion or be a liar. Who is the intolerant one here?
---------
I never once said if you couldn't prove your opinion that you were a liar.
I DO, however, say if you can't prove your accusation that I did something I didn't do, that would leave you a liar. You know I never demanded anything of anyone here. I have merely been posting opinion and asking questions.
If I make an accusation against you, yet cannot show evidence to support my accusation, I am left to apologize or be a liar.
I am intolerant of someone lying about me and refusing to either prove what they say or apologize. You would be, too. I had hoped, instead of the constant demonization of the other opinion, that some common ground or at least tolerance for the other opinion could be found. A waste of time.
Thanks for proving my point Lash.
Instead of addressing my argument that laid out your statements and how I came to use the word "demand". You just ignore the argument and go on your merry way saying I "accused" you of something. LOL.. quite funny Lash...
-----------------------------------------
let me pretend I am Lash now..
I never once used the word "accuse". Show me where I ACCUSED you of something or be branded a liar.
------------------------------------------
Sorry Lash but your use of the word "accuse" is the same situtation as my use of the word "demand." You can stew in your own juices now.
Oh, don't stop. Please, please! :wink:
(But you will go on, Lash - won't you?)
Just for Walter's sake.
It was never a demand.
Walter Hinteler wrote:Oh, don't stop. Please, please!
Walter,
I liked your statement before you edited it. It made the grin in your avator look so evil.
Lash wrote:Just for Walter's sake.
It was never a demand.
And just for Walter's sake.
It was never an accusation.
Walter is so evil, he treats guests like they were royalty.
I hope that Jeb finally backs off from this nonsense. He has gone far beyond reasonableness to satisfy his ultra religious right wing compatriots. Now he needs to get on with more pressing matters, like running the state of Florida!
Even before that, he needs to issue a personal apology to Michael Schiavo for pimping the tragedy of his wife for political gain.
No Crime Found In Schiavo Collapse
This does not erase the efforts of Terri Schiavo's parents and their minions to smear and slime Michael Schiavo, a shameful episode.
BBB
No Crime Found In Schiavo Collapse
TALLAHASSEE, Fla., July 7, 2005
CBS News
Florida's state attorney said there was no evidence Terri Schiavo's collapse 15 years ago involved criminal activity, and Gov. Jeb Bush on Thursday declared an end to the state's inquiry.
Bush had asked State Attorney Bernie McCabe to investigate Schiavo's case after her autopsy last month. He said he now considers the state's involvement with the matter finished.
"Based on your conclusions, I will follow your recommendation that the inquiry by the state be closed," Bush said in a two-sentence letter.
In asking McCabe to look again into what put Schiavo in a persistent vegetative state, Bush had cited an alleged gap between when Schiavo's husband Michael found her and when he called 911. The governor had said the issue remained unsettled.
McCabe said, however, while such discrepancies may exist in the record, Michael Schiavo's statements that he called 911 immediately had been consistent.
"This consistency, coupled with the varying recollections of the precise time offered by other interested parties, lead me to the conclusion that such discrepancies are not indicative of criminal activity and thus not material to any potential investigation," McCabe wrote in a letter to Bush accompanying his report.
The report was dated June 30, but not released until Thursday.
The bitter right-to-die case engulfed the courts, Congress and White House, and divided the country.
Terri Schiavo died March 31 from dehydration after her feeding tube was disconnected despite efforts by Bush, her parents and some state national lawmakers to keep her alive.
Michael Schiavo had fought to have the tube disconnected, saying his wife wouldn't have wanted to remain in such a state.
The autopsy left unanswered the question of why Terri Schiavo's temporarily heart stopped, cutting off oxygen to her brain. A medical examiner was unable to determine with reasonable certainty a "manner of death."
McCabe said there must be some fact or evidence indicating a criminal act caused the death to open a full homicide investigation. He said the review revealed none.
"There are several hypothetical theories that could be advanced, but I have concluded, though not with reasonable certainty, that the most likely hypothesis for the cause of her collapse was the one advanced during the 1992 malpractice litigation, i.e., an eating disorder," he wrote.
Attorneys for Terri Schiavo's parents didn't immediately respond to a request for comment.
Michael Schiavo's attorney said he would comment after he reviewed the report.
