On the Past Days

Kathianne said:
Respectfully, not really. You are asking to 'assume' many things, which you and I are not privvy to.

But to just reject assumptions, aka hypothetical modelling, is merely a childish ploy to stop the conversation. I was thinking of the fifth grade piece of knowledge:" assume and you just make and ASS of U and ME." It's juvenile.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
But to just reject assumptions, aka hypothetical modelling, is merely a childish ploy to stop the conversation. I was thinking of the fifth grade piece of knowledge:" assume and you just make and ASS of U and ME." It's juvenile.


Again, respectfully. This is much too serious a case to play, "What if..." It demeans Terri and the reality is impossible to ascertain.
 
Wife beating---now there's an issue that goes on in private between two adults----are you suggesting that we stay out of that too?
 
Kathianne said:
Again, respectfully. This is much too serious a case to play, "What if..." It demeans Terri and the reality is impossible to ascertain.

No it doesn't. It's not demeaning at all. That's patently absurd. It's called using hypotheticals to discuss an issue.
 
rtwngAvngr said:
No it doesn't. It's not demeaning at all. That's patently absurd. It's called using hypotheticals to discuss an issue.

Fine, go to it then.
 
Kathianne said:
Fine, go to it then.

I was merely pointing out that using the righteousness of fifth grade "no assumptions" thinking to bail out of a conversation is lame, but thanks for your permission, mommy dearest.
:dev3:
 
rtwngAvngr said:
I was merely pointing out that using the righteousness of fifth grade "no assumptions" thinking to bail out of a conversation is lame, but thanks for your permission, mommy dearest.
:dev3:

I'm not your momma. :dev3:
 
Mr. P said:
You don't have a clue pal.


Probably because you aren't able to stand up and give us one----if you can't handle this thread get out of it. IF you would like to participate, give up the mysterious attitude and explain your position.
 
Mr. P,

Your comment on not making assumptions would have some validity in this conversation if the court had not already based its ruling on them.

We have no idea, neither does Michael Shiavo, if Terri Shiavo would have wanted to be kept alive if it meant being fed through a tube. The situations in which Terri supposedly made comments about not wanting to live were all involving completely different situations...one involving a respirator being used completely against a persons express written wishes, and another about a person in a coma.

The Court ASSUMMED that Terri ALSO meant, if my husband doesn't give me rehab and I am on a feeding tube.

The Court ASSUMMED that Terri's husband was working in her best interest, despite sworn affidavits from numerous doctors, friends, family, etc. that might prove the opposite.

This case has been entirely about assumptions being made by people in power...so to sit back in a conversation about a case that was STEEPED in assumptions and say that you won't discuss it because "assumptions are dangerous," is laughable.
 
Gem said:
Mr. P,

Your comment on not making assumptions would have some validity in this conversation if the court had not already based its ruling on them.

We have no idea, neither does Michael Shiavo, if Terri Shiavo would have wanted to be kept alive if it meant being fed through a tube. The situations in which Terri supposedly made comments about not wanting to live were all involving completely different situations...one involving a respirator being used completely against a persons express written wishes, and another about a person in a coma.

The Court ASSUMMED that Terri ALSO meant, if my husband doesn't give me rehab and I am on a feeding tube.

The Court ASSUMMED that Terri's husband was working in her best interest, despite sworn affidavits from numerous doctors, friends, family, etc. that might prove the opposite.

This case has been entirely about assumptions being made by people in power...so to sit back in a conversation about a case that was STEEPED in assumptions and say that you won't discuss it because "assumptions are dangerous," is laughable.
:clap: :clap: :clap:
 
Gem said:
Mr. P,

Your comment on not making assumptions would have some validity in this conversation if the court had not already based its ruling on them.

We have no idea, neither does Michael Shiavo, if Terri Shiavo would have wanted to be kept alive if it meant being fed through a tube. The situations in which Terri supposedly made comments about not wanting to live were all involving completely different situations...one involving a respirator being used completely against a persons express written wishes, and another about a person in a coma.

The Court ASSUMMED that Terri ALSO meant, if my husband doesn't give me rehab and I am on a feeding tube.

The Court ASSUMMED that Terri's husband was working in her best interest, despite sworn affidavits from numerous doctors, friends, family, etc. that might prove the opposite.

This case has been entirely about assumptions being made by people in power...so to sit back in a conversation about a case that was STEEPED in assumptions and say that you won't discuss it because "assumptions are dangerous," is laughable.

:clap: Gem is in the hizouse!
 
Gem, you are most assuredly on a ROLL! I've been trying to "point" you for two days on various topics - I'll do it yet!
 

Forum List

Back
Top