count yourself lucky that it is hardbound..
eduardo
Oroborus21
JoinedPosts by Oroborus21
-
30
The new OM Book.
by The Thinker inon sunday they released the new version of the om book.
( i'm not sure if they still call it the om book) but i got myself 3 copies.
i might sell one of them.
-
-
-
95
WHAT DO YOU THINK OF THE TERRI SCHIAVO CASE?
by Mary inthere is apparently no chance at all of her ever recovering from her present state, but do you think she should live or die?
for myself, i think she's better off dead than living---no, existing---in her present state.
i for one, have instructed my family to let me die if something like this ever happened to me.
-
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!
This situation seems to raise all kinds of issues and now its even stirring debate about our fundamental system of checks and balances.
I just want to add my own thoughts and comments but first I want to address two posters on this thread:
Bikerchiic/Kate, there is a lot of truth in what you say! One cannot just simply deny the effects of one's previous choices in life. If the anorexia nervosa/bullemia nervosa is factual then it is certainly very ironic that she may ultimately die from starvation. But also let's remember that many, if not most, who are truly suffering from these and other impulse-control/body perceptive and eating disorders aren't acting under the full control of a healthy brain/psyche. In short, few engage in these forms of eating disorders purposely, because they WANT to. They are very much victims of what is whatever is wrong with them which causes them to engage in these unhealthy activities. Thus, we should be careful to consider that even if Terry engaged in such negative and harmful behaviours, these particular problems (unlike say drug use in most cases) are linked and tied to a corresponding medical/psychological problem. It would not be fair than to say that Terry's present condition is the harvest of what she has sewed.
NewLight2: YOU ARE JUST PLAIN RIDICULOUS! I am just going to address a few things that you have (LIKE A MORON) said in this thread and a few other points:
1: Husband (schiavo) wants to destroy evidence that he was abusive or "strangled his wife" which brought her into her current condition.
That's just stupid in every way.
First, although it appears that you have followed the news on this situation, apparently you did not bother to research the FACTS. Terry collapsed in 1990 and was immediately taken to the hospital. IF THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE OF STRANGULATION/SUFFOCATON it would have been immediately apparent to the physicians treating her. Bruises, strangulation, burst blood vessels in the eyes, any of these are evidence of asphyxia or strangulation. These would have been present in 1990 and the husband would have been arrested in charged.
Second, there would be NO medical evidence today, almost 15 years later, that would indicate any type of strangulation/suffocation. Terry has received MRIs/CAT scans which do not support any such cause for her vegetative condition. In fact, the cause is apparently the fault of medical treatment that she received after her initial collapse, which resulted in jury findings of malpractice claims in favour of her family, her estate and her husband in excess of $2 million dollars.
(As an aside, if there were any evidence to be found, it would be produced through an Autopsy. Since even a Cremation order that the husband sought would be superceded by the autopsy order required by the DA in this case, it would be extremely stupid for the husband to allow her to die, if the result is that such evidence would be more likely to be produced.)
2. The husband is afraid that evidence of "his spousal abuse" will come out.
That is stupid for two reasons. First, Terry has the care of medical personnel and has already received numerous physical evaluations from countless doctor's not ONE of them has alleged finding ANY EVIDENCE of spousal abuse. Secondly, it is stupid because the punishment for being "found guilty" of spousal abuse is nothing compared to the punishment for being found "guilty of her death". If there was evidence to be found of spousal abuse THAT LED TO HER PRESENT CONDITION AND SHE SUBSEQUENTLY DIES he would be guilty not just of spouse abuse but of homicide. Without a doubt he has been legally advised and knows this. Thus again his interest would be to keep her alive as long as possible.
Oh and by the way, with regard to your latest posts regarding the petitions filed (the 60-day stay petition) evidently you do not fully comprehend the simple fact that what is being requested is a stay to "investigate" whether "abuse has occurred" and is NOT ITSELF ANY PROOF of such allegations. Anybody with half a brain can see that this petiton filed last Friday, AFTER THE SUPREME COURT CLEARED THE WAY FOR HER TUBE TO BE REMOVED, is nothing more than a political action, designed to give the courts/fed/congress more time to interfere. If there were any such proof or real concern, these would have been addressed a long long time ago.
(Also with regard to the "news report" which read more like the National Enquirer where Terry supposedly upon hearing the news that the tube would be removed, suddenly lurched up and said: "IIIIIIIIIIII....WWWAAAAAAAA........": I will finish the sentence for you, it is: "IIIIIII WWWWAAAAAANNNTTTT TTTTOOOOO DDDDIIIIIIIIIEEEE!!!!.)
3. The Husband wants to benefit from her death.
Interestingly, I believe the husband has already demonstrated that this is not about MONEY when he declined not one but TWO offers, the first for $10 million dollars and the other for $1 million dollars, JUST TO RELEASE HIS GUARDIANSHIP. If he was only interested in money and in MOVING ON WITH HIS LIFE, he would have released his guardianship a long time ago as Terry's family had already expressed their intention to FILE FOR LEGAL DIVORCE ON TERRY'S BEHALF and to continue treatment/rehabilitiation - both of which would have allowed him to walk away with a clean conscience and start his life anew. (Though I am not sure that the family would not have tried to sue him for alimony.)
In addition to this, the husband long ago volunteered to give up any remainder of her trust fund, to which he is legally entitled to receive upon her death.to charity.
4. The Husband just wants to move on with his life and forget about Terry.
Nonsense, pure nonsense. Yes he started a family, has another relationship, I am not sure that anyone would blame him for that. But if he just wanted to walk away from Terry, he could have relinquished his guardianship a long long time ago. He received over $1 million in a malpractice suit that was HIS AWARD, not part of the trust fund. He could have walked away at that point. No one goes through all of this hell for 15 years for such petty reasons as have been put forth by some.
From all of the above it seems clear to me that the Husband's only concern and conflict has been his love for his wife, which he knew to be so beautiful and full of life and which he evidently feels extremely strongly that would not wish to live the way she has been "living" for the past 15 years.
I have no doubt that this was a terrible and heart-wrenching decision to make or that watching his wife slowly die will be a very sad ordeal.
Having said that, it is easy to be sympathetic with the parents. They believe and evidently, other doctors have also concluded, that Terry is not in a persistent vegistative state - as found by the court and the court's medical examination. They have said that they want to take care of her and be with her for all of her life. Such is natural from a parent. But there are two problems with this: 1) her parents are not young. They could and perhaps are likely to die before Terry would if she were maintained. Likewise, even her siblings could die before her. Thus the burden and responsibility would fall to others (family members and non-family members?). So their parental argument only goes so far before they are enlisting and speaking on behalf of others. More importantly, is that they seem to be sustituting their own feelings and desires for those of Terry.
In short they are being extremely selfish. True, they may be concerned for Terry but they also are being selfish. Period. I truly do not know of any person, no matter how much I love, that I would want to submit them to a lifetime of "life" like that. Even with constant rehabilitation and therapy (and short of some wild medical advancement/discovery (using human cloning), Terry is never going to have a quality of life that is even appreciably better than what she has now. I think that is is hard for many people to understand that they would want to do that to their daughter. But everyone of course feels for them. This is a tragedy for them and nothng that any person wants a loved one to go through.
Finally, I would like to turn to the whole government getting involved with this (which even the Parents have voiced out against.) Obvisously, the basic issues of euthanasia, right-to-die and personal medical decision and patient privacy are all raised.
It sickens me that after working itself throughout the court system for 10 years, that now we have congressmen and senators boarding planes, trains and automobiles in order to make it back to D.C. to vote on legislation, designed deliberately to interfere with and supercede the judicial system. I am not even talking about the expense to tax payers over this mess. There is a serious cause for concern about the general slide down the slippery slope of the government interfering with personal rights and freedoms in this country over the past 5 years since 911. If Congress is allowed to intervene in this situation it will be a very bad precedent for the future.
That's pretty much all I have to say about this except for one more reminder that you have all heard already. As an attorney that does estate planning, I just want to remind all of you to get your estate plan documents in order: will, trust, advance medical directive/power of attorney for medical care and power of attorney for property.
-Eduardo Leaton Jr., Esq.
-
46
christian words or expressions you will never hear a jdub say
by in a new york bethel minute in.
gospel, grace, born again, the lord, saints, virgin mary... any more?.
bethel
-
-
Oroborus21
Greetings!
I think many of the words and expressionsI proposed in this thread are used by Jehovah's Witnesses and some are used quite often - albeit perhaps not in the context that is expected. (rapture, Lord, saviour, etc.)
I also wanted to say that I believe that "church" has already gotten more coinage among Jehovah's Witnesses and much like the word "religion" the word "church" will in time be fully embraced at least as far as describing the Kingdom Hall (buildings). I think "Organization" or other term will still be preferred to describe the whole body of association and not "church."
I think some expressions of Christendom are pretty vapid. One of most irksome is "Have a Blessed Day!"
I am glad JWs don't say anything that stupid. (Every day is a blessing.)
-Eduardo
-
Mostly better than Vogon Poetry: "The Hours"
by Oroborus21 inthe hours
1, 2, 3, 4. shall i knock upon your door?.
5, 6, 7, 8. shall i rap against your gate?.
-
Oroborus21
The Hours
1, 2, 3, 4
Shall I knock upon your door?
5, 6, 7, 8
Shall I rap against your gate?
9, 10, 11, 12
I'm here to save you from yourself!
13, 14, Hi 15
I can see you! Let me in!
16, or and look 17
Don't you know you must be clean?
18, 19, ah yes 20
Need a Bible, I've got plenty
21 and 22
Don't you know what you must do?
23 now 24
Wait! Have we been here before?
25, 26
Satan's up to his old tricks!
27, 28
Oh well, time for cofee break
29, ah yes 30
Boy these worldlies make me dirty
31 and 32
Very good morning, met one or two
33, 34
Let's just preach a while more
35, 36, Whew! its 37
Too bad there's a turnstile up in Heaven!
38 and 39
You've got yours and I've got mine
40, ah yes, finally 40
Boy do I sure feel sorry,
For all those poor dear friends of mine,
Who can't enjoy a pioneering time!
by Eduardo
(PS: Give me a break people I wrote this in my head walking to the office today.)
-
97
How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?
by Dragonlady76 inthe quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.
i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?
i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".
-
-
Oroborus21
hey that's TAIL not a freudian dress...eh slip!
-Eduardo
-
97
How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?
by Dragonlady76 inthe quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.
i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?
i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".
-
-
Oroborus21
Oh Dragonlady, You know I am a dragon swallowing my own tale. Maybe we can help each other out?
-Eduardo
-
97
How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?
by Dragonlady76 inthe quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.
i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?
i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".
-
-
Oroborus21
Talesin:
Yellow Point: I am not being "passive-agressive" I am being straight up. When it comes to "spiritual decisions" in a household the Bible plainly states/implies via the headship arrangement that the man is the final decision maker. Nothing unclear about that.
Red Point: The "trouble" isn't the bible. The Trouble is warped interpretation of the bible and extension of a scriptural principle into realms of life that are not spiritual. Beating your wife is not a spiritual activity! The bible's spiritual headship arrangement doesn't apply to non-spiritual situations or things. Unfortunately and this HAS OFTEN BEEN THE CASE IN THE ORGANIZATION I know, some have made the mistake and used this scriptural headship principle as an excuse and tried to extend it into the non-spiritual. This has often produced the kind of abusive situations and exploitative situations (and just plain idiotic situations of "lordship") that have no doubt and not unreasonably turned women/sisters off from the whole headship principle all together.
But to deny the scriptural principle is to both deny scripture and to from a practical viewpoint "throw the baby out with the bathwater"
With regards to who is the "final decision maker" in the home when it comes to non-spiritual things that is up to the individuals involved. Again the Bible DOES NOT establish some "tie-breaker" for the non-spiritual situation. But I say that there has to be some final decision maker. Some couples may make the man the "boss", others (most?!) may make the woman the "boss" and others may cut cards to break "tie-breakers" and sometimes you just alternate. Ok honey you win this one. Wow! you are going along with me, great let's buy the oceanfront property in Arizona (yeah but she will nag me and never let me forget it if it turns out badly!!!)
-Eduardo
-
97
How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?
by Dragonlady76 inthe quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.
i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?
i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".
-
-
Oroborus21
feminist leaning doesn't mean feminist. I am not a feminist:
I am the big chauvinist pig but with a heart of gold
Eduardo
-
31
Former JW- new here....
by disillusioned youth inhi guys and gals....... .
i would just like to extend greetings to all those poor souls who had to endure the torturous childhood of growing up in a strict jw lifestyle as i had.
i didn't know that there were such forums on the net, and i was made aware of this by my sister who is also a member here, i believe.. i find this kind of funny really.
-
-
Oroborus21
Hey thanks for the backing WhiskeyJack!
Yeah in my case both my folks are in their 70s, both with Diabetes and other health problems. Frankly, I will be lucky if they live another decade or more.
They have given their lives to being Witnesses. When I left home for college in 1989, my dad was just coming out of a "spiritual doldrum" and they found reinvigoration with becoming active again. Today, all of their responsibilities, ministry, bible studies, it is what gives them some PURPOSE to get up out of bed every day.
Sure, maybe I could help them see the "light" of what's wrong with the Society but to what end? For them to die, depressed and disillusioned with sadness and pain over a life time squandered. That would be the real tragedy. I want my poor dear mother close her sweet saintly eyes when she dies, with her last thought being she is going to wake up in a paradise. If she does that will be all Joy! and she doesn't she will return to the earth and that comforting last thought of hers will be our comfort at our loss.
-Eduardo
-
97
How do you women feel about acting stupid to please men and the borg?
by Dragonlady76 inthe quote below was part of a talk in the 90's.
i heard this as a child and thought to myself, how can any woman accept such a draconian veiw?
i was not sure if i had understood correctly so, i brought it up to my bible study conductor maggie, i was appalled that she agreed with this veiw, we debated it back and forth, until i got the upper hand, then she told me that i was to "rebellious and strong willed", and that i "should never get married", that i way i would not have to submit to male "headshit" "headship".
-
-
Oroborus21
Dear Jeannie:
Regarding your latest:
This is what I am talking about, being completely misunderstood. It is both frustrating and bewildering.
Let me make is as plain as I can:
Recognizing a "spiritual headship" is NOT AN EXCUSE OR LICENSE for a man to abuse a woman or to exploit a woman. Period.
Such conduct is an abomination and a misuse of scriptural principles and what the Bible really says. I am sorry that it happens and I understand that it happens.
It isn't right, but it doesn't invalidate what the bible says.
-Eduardo
PS: doesn't anyone recognize naked humour anymore? Obviously I was joking when I said "write the bible, next time"