User talk:Duckecho/Archive01

'''DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.'''

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 1 May 2005 and 26 May 2005.

Post replies to the main talk page, copying the section you are replying to if necessary. (See How to archive a talk page.)

Duckecho 04:28, 27 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmm.. Maybe he’s trying to say something.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, he's saying, "look at me, look at me." Sadly, when anyone does look at you they see a pathetic poseur pretending to be a player. Don't you have to clean your room or something? Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * That time, it was filed on time, not late, but the court did not abide by court rules, which added several days on for postal submissions.


 * Sorry. The docket says "filed 1 day late." Was that your first time using the mail? Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * No. I have mailed stuff by US Postal mail many times. I know what the docket said. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Apparently not. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * The other time, when I was 15 days late, I really was late, but remember -this was an original jurisdiction case, and even if I were late (which I think was the only time in my life I was late in a court filing), it is of no import: "Original jurisdiction" filing is allowed any time that a deprivation in liberty is alleged, which I was certainly doing, because Terri was still detained in contravention to the laws on hospice limitations to terminally ill. So, the court probably said to itself: "Hmm... the boy has a point: If we dismiss him, he can simply re-file, and it would be "timely," because Theresa is indeed illegally detained; so, we'd better continue his case." In any case, the court actually did continue my case from late 2003 until mid 2005, which is discussed briefly below. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I really would like to know what color the sun is on the planet where you live. Time that passes while one's case is pending does not constitute it being continued. In any event, the multiple denials and strikes occured over a much shorter time period than you allege. We're not even to mid 2005 yet, for crying out loud. You should go back to the official docket and review the time table. All your speculation as to what the court may have thought or said to itself is worthless. They said all they had to say when the declined to accept your improperly filed motion, declined to accept your untimely filed motion, and denied a rehearing on their decision. They never actually addressed your motion. They may not even have read it. However, in your fantasy world, you can have ice cream for every meal and all the kids will like you. Have a ball. Those who can read will look at the docket and see what really happened. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Listen here, Duck, I know the rules of the court, but since you don't, I won't go too hard on you. Take a look at this quote: "Additional Time After Service by Mail. If a party, court reporter, or clerk is required or permitted to do an act within some prescribed time after service of a document, and the document is served by mail, 5 days shall be added to the prescribed period." That quote Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure 9.420(d), which governs the computation of time. In plain English, it means that I get several more days to be on time if sending by mail. In this case, I recall that I sent it on time, and that the mail got there BEFORE the five day grace period had ended, but the blasted court decided to try and find a violation when there really wasn't one. If they can't win by hook, they'll try to win by crook, if you know what I mean. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * They're all against you, aren't they? Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Quack! --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's not forget that both the governor and I lost our initial rounds in court, and when the dust settled, we both stood on equal ground (or maybe he was a tad higher, being "the governor," who got a hearing), but we both lost unanimously (I lost 1-0, with the clerk being the only "vote," and he lost 7-0 with the court voting), and we both went into overtime, seeking something to break the tie, in the friendly rivalry that existed among those on our side. Now, in a tie-breaker, no one cares what happened before -we both lost unanimously -a tie. So, BOTH of us asked for a rehearing, and who do you think did better? I was voted down 4-3, and the court called my rehearing motion a reinstatement motion, but it is the same thing. Jeb was voted down 7-0, and no one came closer to winning for Terri than did I --but it was theoretically possible. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, someone could have been granted a rehearing (which I don't think happened) -and THEN lost. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, someone could have lost 5-4 in the US Supreme Court (which would be a loss of only 55.56% vs. 44.44% of the vote, better than my 57.143% vs. 42.857%) --the US supreme court has nine members, not seven, changing the ratios, and a 44% loss would’ve been better than a 43% loss that I encountered. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * For example, some one on the "save Terri" side could’ve actually won. No one did. I came the closest. The route traveled is of no import; the fact that I achieved a better result than the Governor is a measure of my success. By the way, if we were to accept your hypothesis that I was merely a legend in my own mind, Duck, then why did the court no dismiss me 7-0? Awaiting an answer, but I won't get one. I don't check my page much, so go see my full contact data, which, by the way in on both my WIKI page AND at the bottom of ALL the official court briefs I filed. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:35, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You are too clueless for words. Your motion in the Florida Supreme Court was never even accepted for consideration. You missed two filing deadlines (one in defiance of the court's order) which led the court to decline to even accept your motion. Bush's was heard and argued (and to add insult to injury, your motion to file an amicus brief in his case was denied, too&mdash;another loss). Do you not see the difference? Sure, both of you filed for a rehearing: Bush, to re-argue the case that the court heard, you to get the court to hear your motion in the first place. Bush lost (the vote doesn't matter&mdash;he lost), and the court didn't re-hear his case. You lost (again, the vote doesn't matter&mdash;you lost), and the court didn't accept your motion at all. Never even heard it. Didn't rule on it. There is utterly no equivalency in your cases. And frankly, the fact that the court heard arguments in Bush's case and didn't even accept yours means he came way closer to denying Terri's wishes than you. Duckecho 21:29, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, just know that everyone but you sees a simple windmill and someone wearing tinfoil clothing riding a donkey. Your insistence on casting yourself as a knight in shining armor fighting the evil dragon doesn't change the truth. usually, by the time kids reach 8 or 10 years old, they learn that they cannot simply wish for something to be true to make it true. FuelWagon 23:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, If my case were such a "loser," then why wasn't my rehearing motion promptly denied? (If my case were so stupid, it would've been immediately denied, and NOT lingered in court from late 2003 until mid 2005!) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Would it have anything to do with your untimely filings and dilatory waste of the court's time? In any event, as I said above; check your calendar. You were directed to properly file your motion by 18 March 2004. You didn't file until April. I'd say that's when the clock started. Your motion was dismissed in late June. That's pretty prompt in court time. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If you can't rebut the point raised in the rhetorical question, then just make up stuff, like this gem: "Your motion was dismissed in late June. That's pretty prompt in court time." Let's look at the real court dates: Searching for my case, SC03-2420, we find THIS little "detail:" Petition docketed on "11/24/2003," but Petition Dismissed on "06/22/2004," which, as I count it, is almost seven months. Then, we find my petition for rehearing on "07/08/2004," which was really a "MOTION FOR CLARIFICATION, CONCURRENT WITH MOTION FOR REHEARING." That motion was not dismissed until "02/23/2005," which was a whopping seven months and 15 days later! Now, you say my case is not notable -or words to that effect. However, if it were this stupid and lame, then:


 * a) My initial petition would've been dismissed IMMEDIATELY. (It wasn't; it took 7 months almost.)
 * b) My rehearing motion would've been IMMEDIATELY tossed. (Many cases are tossed real fast; The court doesn't play!)
 * and ... c)It would've been shot down by a unanimous 7-0 vote. (It was narrowly defeated, 4-3m as we all know, or did you lose the link I gave before?)


 * ...but d) This was not the case -in a,b, or c above, and since you don't rebut these facts of record, then "d," you don't support your argument, and it falls by default (even if it were right). Lose I did, but bad my case wasn't. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Spin it however you want. The court did not accept your motion for consideration. Period. Doesn't matter how long they took to determine that they wouldn't. Doesn't matter what the vote margin was. Your motion never even made it to the inner chamber. Jeb's did. He lost. You lost, but he got farther than you did. As if that counted for something. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

"Doesn't matter how long they took to determine that they wouldn't. Doesn't matter what the vote margin was." Well, according to your logic, if it doesn't matter how long it takes -or the margin of victory/defeat, then we are ALL losers: After all, we ALL will die, right? And the "margin of victory" (how close one came to immorality) doesn't really matter right? We might take 10 years --or 100 years to pass on, but we all die, so even Jeb is a loser by this standard, last I checked. So, why then would he be mentioned. "Quack." Before you ask for a standard, be careful: You just might get that for which you asked! --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * We're not even at mid 2005 yet and your case was sent to the record center in early May, well before mid 2005. Your request for reinstatement was denied in February&mdash;early 2005. The only actual filing of yours that the court admitted was stricken in March, also early 2005. Looks to me like your entire case (once properly, if untimely, filed) took up no more than ten months of the court's time. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Basic Math 101 might help here: From 11/24/2003 (the beginning) to 02/23/2005 (final dismissal) exactly one year, three months, but even 10 months would have been long for such a lame case, if it were lame, eh? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see you've backed off that mid 2005 BS. You can paint it however you want about woulda, shoulda, coulda. It doesn't matter. You lost your petition for a rehearing on a motion that the court never even accepted for consideration. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * One other tidbit: If my case were such a loser, that is, not notable, as you might call it, then why was I not defeated by a 7-0 margin? (If it were so stupid, it would've been defeated 7-0, not 4-3). Just thought I might ask a few probing questions, to which you probably have no answers, eh? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:51, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I said it before and I'll say it again, but you won't get it. Vote spread doesn't have any relavence to the merits of a case. 4-3, 7-0&mdash;doesn't matter. It's a loss. And here's something else to try and get your arms around. I never said your case was a loser. The court never said your case was a loser, either. The court never even accepted your case (the motion for habeus corpus) for review (they did look at your motion for reinstatement&mdash;that was your only case). What I did say was that you were a loser at court. You lost. You didn't win. You are bereft of victory. Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

See above: If your logic holds, we are ALL losers. Does your logic hold? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * If I implied that you had said my case was a loser, I didn't mean to quote any one person directly, but I was merely inferring the general consensus of my detractors. (Some people think I'm a hero, as I've found by getting phone calls and emails from perfect strangers.) My detractors in general -well, detracted, and I simply chose to paraphrase the general complaint as I saw it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Ah, we're down to the private-emails-and-phone-calls-support-me method of debate. You lose. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

That makes no sense to me. Why would I want to send a private email to understand the posts on the board; I can read fairly well. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Gordon, you are nearing 40 years of age. You need to start coming to terms with some realities. One of them is that you are not a lawyer. Filing motions in court does not make you a lawyer. Even just understanding the legal system (which it is clear you do not) does not make you a lawyer. Pretending that you have enjoyed success by not losing as bad as you could have is something that most people start growing out of around puberty. What's holding you up? Duckecho 04:27, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You simply make the naked claim that there is no difference between a 7-0 loss and a 4-3 loss, but offer no proof. Well, I'lll offer proof you are wrong: The difference is I got THREE more justices to agree I was right on the same point of rehearing than GOV BUSH. Now, since your only rebuttal to that has been that Jeb got listened to in court, I will point out that this alone would make his case "more notable" than mine, but it didn't stop there, and you offered not rebuttal of the "tie breaker" of the rehearing action, and your argument falls. I'll take a page out of your play book and distract and evade: What in the world does "duck echo" mean? Aren't you human? What color is the sun on your planet? OK, you get the picture. My point is not whether or not my case was stupid or valid, but its noteworthiness. You see, the governor lost worse than did I, and therefore, since in WIKI rules, fame doesn't matter ("An article should not be dismissed as "vanity" simply because the subject is not famous." from vanity page), then you may only compare non-fame things, and I did better than Bush, so my "notability," or whatever you want to call it, should be higher. Period. It has nothing to do with my life goals. I will address them in their time, but your job, I guess, is to refrain from cheating the WIKI reader and turn out an informative product. Period. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)


 * You keep quoting vanity page as if that has anything to do with the reason no one is permitting you to post your vanity links on the article. I suggest you go read the article on vanity page. I'm going to keep hammering on this until you get it: you were not on the same point of rehearing that Bush was. His case was heard and dismissed. His 7-0 loss was on the petition for rehearing the case that had already been heard. Your case never even got heard. I don't understand what your comprehension problem is. The honors program at FSU must have diminished markedly since my brother went there. Duckecho 11:45, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

So? He lost, thus, by your logic, it would all be equal: You kept hammering in the point that I lost, no matter what the margin, ...so, let's apply it to Bush & Co.: HE lost, by whatever margin. so, by your logic, he is not notable: He lost. Yet you don't object to mention of Jeb Bush. ''What's wrong? Logic not working?'' So what if he were heard in court? That's not the point of the article. Terri Schiavo's father NEVER filed a court paper; he got a lawyer to do it for him --and he lost on top of that! But you don't object to mentioning Robt Schindler. Logic not working today? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 12:25, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

While there may be sympathizers to your POV, you are not in the majority; sit tight and chill.

Duck, I answer your concerns at this diff, which would link to:  if the page is not modified by the time you click on it. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

Reply to Scatology, et al
Hi, Duckecho. Thanks for your message. As you'll see, I've added another message to the Terri Schiavo talk page, concerning the treatment of NCdave. You think I'm a little quick to rise to his defence, but in fact, I was around more at an earlier stage, and I have almost constantly found that the atmosphere was hostile towards anyone who seemed to lean towards the Schindler side. Tropix, for example, arrived on 9 April, and made some calm, rational contributions (in my opinion). I would guess that Tropix is pro-life, although he never said so. He seemed to understand the meaning of NPOV. He never inserted personal commentary about Michael being abusive, or Greer being wrong. He tried to give more mention to testimony from doctors who disputed the PVS diagnosis, for example. He was not rude; he did not engage in edit wars. (I'm assuming that Tropix is a "he", but I don't actually know.) He was abused, and ridiculed. I only discovered last night, looking through archives, etc. that FuelWagon made five edits to Tropix's user page, accusing him of being a sockpuppet (first vandalism), or a suspected sockpuppet (the other four vandalisms). The evidence and  seemed to be simply that his edits showed considerable Wikipedian skill for an alleged newcomer. Placing a sockpuppet image on his user page seems spiteful and childish, and in violation of the Please do not bite the newcomers policy. I do not think it would have happened if his edits had been more on the side of Michael Schiavo. Tropix has now disappeared, and I don't blame him. I felt like disappearing myself. I have also received a certain amount of abuse, though it hasn't been too bad.

With regard to NCdave, his method of editing is very different from Tropix's and mine. It seems pointless to keep on inserting the POV tag, knowing that it will be reverted within minutes. But I can sympathize because I do believe that the neutrality is disputed. I can name at least five registered editors who would agree - but some of them have left, possibly in frustration or disgust. I can sympathize because I believe he has been treated rudely and unfairly. Whether you agree with his POV or not, it seems certain that he has tried to discuss the issues on the talk page, and has been scorned, abused, and ridiculed. Many of the points he makes are ignored. (I admit that his messages can be very long!)

I disagree that he has vandalized. The Vandalism article clearly states that NPOV violations are not vandalism. He has certainly engaged in edit wars, but I'm sure that could happen to any of the other editors who currently enjoy a respected status among Terri Schiavo Wikipedia editors if 98% of fellow editors were pro-life Christians who started a "revert on sight" policy.

Another accusation against NCdave which I believe to be unfair is the accusation that he tried to change the official Wikiquette policy to match his own behaviour. His edits (made between 20 March and 6 April) can be seen here. I see no evidence that he was trying to alter the policy. He claims that there was an ambiguity, as "right and wrong" can refer to morality or to truth. The article said that the talk pages were not a place to discuss what was right or wrong. He clarified what he saw as an ambiguity, adding that issues of what was true or false could be discussed. I have a degree in linguistics, and I fully agree that there was an ambiguity. My experience of Wikipedia tells me that his attempted edits are in accordance with what is expected at a talk page. (Not whether or not Terri should have had the tube removed, but whether or not she received any therapy after 1992, or whether or not Dr Hammesfahr was validly nominated for a Nobel Prize. In other words, facts, not moral judgments.)  The way he was reverted - one edit summary said, "Any further edits by NCDave should also be reverted" - seems also to be contrary to the Please do not bite the newcomers policy.

So, all I'd say is that the atmosphere at the Terri Schiavo Talk Page is not always very friendly towards pro-life newcomers, even those who don't start edit wars. I'm happy to say that there are exceptions though. Thanks again for your message. Ann Heneghan 01:17, 19 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. 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 Wikipedia.

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)

Duck Echo, I have spotted the outbreak of controversy, and address it in this subheader: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#Sandbox_-_general_reccomendations_.26_suggestions In case it is deleted, it should be stored in this diff:. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:08, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

Quoting you from Wagon's talk page: '''You know how people in substance abuse programs occasionally have temptations and need to call on their friends and supporters to stay on the wagon (no pun intended)? Well, this is my call for help. The Fat One vomited another several pages of out-of-context non-sequitir pseudo-legalese in response to my Life Prolonging Procedures comments and it is all I can do to keep from going there and adding another couple of pages of rebuttals to his nonsense. Please make it stop...Please repeat DNFtT to me over and over...Please keep reminding me how clueless he is...Please tell me the Whack-a-Mole story again...Please? Duckecho 01:23, 28 May 2005 (UTC)'''

If you don't like the Florida Laws, talk to your representative and your senator up there in north Florida. Don't pin it on me. Besides, if you feel I misplaced blame on the judges, let me know. After all, I conceded that the "necessary" phrase in the retained rights section might be an excuse for denial of therapy, etc., but I can't keep making any more excuses for these Florida judges; They violated the laws plain and simple. Look, I think Wagon's kinda weird, but don't bother his page: I can take your criticism just fine, trust me. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 01:29, 28 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 WIKIpedia 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_In_Florida 22:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

"Duck, I'm disappointed in you" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#The_.22singling_out_Hammesfahr.22_POV_debate_.2F_and_Duck.27s_complaints_addressed You can do better. Sleep on it. --- N2GY