User talk:Duckecho/Archive02

Your Talk page archive
Your archive should be at User talk:Duckecho/Archive01 or User:Duckecho/Archive01. You put it into the article name space. :) RickK 21:54, May 30, 2005 (UTC)

It's at Talk:Duckecho/Archive01. That's article space, if it doesn't have User: in front of it. I can move it for you, if you want. RickK 21:35, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

The post that you removed (I saw it anyway)
Okay, I stand corrected! I've learned something new. (However, to restore my self-esteem, I'll point out that "connect" is not a noun in my twenty-volume Oxford English Dictionary, or in the online version, which I have access to as an Open University student.)

You must forgive me for ignoring your recent messages. I got my computing assignment finished by staying up until 7 a.m., going to bed for two hours, and then working at it until 11.47, when I finally submitted it. (Thirteen minutes later, and I'd have failed the course.) I'm exhausted. Luckily, it was my day off.

For that reason, I'm not going to post anything to the talk page tonight about the "to better care for his wife" issue. But just here, briefly, I'll point out that if I say, "John said it was a nice day", the actual claim that I am making is that John said that. I'm completely neutral about whether or not it was a nice day. But if I say, "As John said, it was a nice day", then I am making a claim that it was a nice day. I'm also slipping in a little claim that John said it, but my main claim is that it was a nice day. Because you used "as" in your two edits, the Wikipedia article is still claiming that Michael's motive in studying nursing was to be able to look after Terri. (I have studied language analysis at BA and MA level, even though I didn't know "connect" was a noun!) Whether we think that was his motive or not is unimportant. The point is that a proper NPOV article should not state as fact something that is unverifiable. Would you mind taking another look at it? Also, is there any reason why it should appear twice in the (already over-long) article? Thanks. It's after midnight now. Going to bed. Ann Heneghan 23:29, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I answered you and Ann --both --point by point --on her page, at this diff: I gave you a fair shake. (PS: This message will self-destruct in 10 seconds .. 9-8-7-6... go ahead & delete it - you always do.)--  G ordon W atts D ot C om   11:47, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)

For a good laugh...
Duck, you (or someone very much like you) posted on my talk page that you wanted to talk. check your email. FuelWagon 23:47, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your (old) message
Hello again, Duckecho.

Thank you for your messages to my talk page. They are not recent, but I was very busy with a final course assignment, catching up on sleep, starting and finishing another assignment, and finishing end-of-term work where I teach. I have a lot of unanswered messages and e-mails to deal with.

I am sorry for the pain you must have gone through regarding the death of your brother, and I appreciate your sharing it with me.

At a time when I was extremely tired, I posted a message to your talk page about the "to better care for his wife" issue and about the difference between "John said it was a nice day" and "As John said, it was a nice day". I did not want to get into an edit war, and hoped that you might see what I meant and make the change yourself. That was partly why I posted the message here rather than at the Terri Schiavo talk page.

When I got your message saying that you would e-mail your thoughts to me, I was just disappearing again, and was very busy for the next week, with only the occasional look at Wikipedia. Personally, I feel that comments about the meaning or implied meaning of chunks of text in the Terri Schiavo article are better directed to the talk page for that article. That way, others can contribute, and there's a permanent record. In the next day or two, I shall raise the subject again on the talk page.

I did not appreciate this addition to ghost's talk page I was already hesitating about giving my e-mail address to someone I don't know, and that message settled it. You may remember that several weeks ago I requested that you would remove personal attacks or ridicule directed against other Wikipedians from your user page and your talk page. My reason was simply that Wikipedians do wander into other talk pages, perhaps to leave a message there, and could feel hurt at seeing cruel jokes or nasty remarks about themselves. I have a feeling that the anonymity of the internet and of usernames (which I don't use) can make people behave in a way that they would not behave in if they were in a face-to-face community.

I also do not appreciate your contribution about the medicine bottles, but am trying to consider the possibility that it was just a joke. It can be hard to tell, when messages are posted on the internet by people who do not know each other.

I don't want to spend hours of my time writing personal messages to Wikipedians. It's already very time consuming to edit articles and to contribute to the talk page. I'm frankly amazed at the hostility I find there. Some people have a POV that it was right to take the tube out; others have a POV that it was wrong. I do not understand why that has to lead to such an unwelcoming environment, and to messages such as your one about me to ghost. I really want to stick to the subject of the Terri Schiavo article (and other articles I'm interested in) from now on. I am recovering from some (minor) health problems. I have a fulltime job, and I am trying to finish two Bachelor's degrees (as hobbies) before starting on a doctorate in September. I also have quite a full social life.

I do not expect to use your e-mail address. If ever you wish to send a private message to me, feel free to use the "E-mail this user" link at the left of my talk page. I wish you well. Ann Heneghan 01:33, 18 Jun 2005 (UTC)

gordo pukes again
(as part of the tony sidaway brouhaha)


 * Here's my two cents worth: Tony does have a point that duck can be proprietal; a look at his contributions, while difficult and lengthy, would eventually verify this. His comments about wack-jobs who've just fallen off the turnip truck indicate he thinks that there are weirdoes out there. That alone, I would agree with Duck, is not offensive, and both of you do appear to contribute. However, taken in the context of his attitude towards NCdave and calling Ann a Pain in the @--, it becomes clear that Duck's faulty logic that the courts must necessarily be NPOV is flawed at the base. That is not to say that he is clueless. Most of his edits seem responsible, and his 500-word summary on improvements for the Schiavo article did not show much bias, but the preceding three links revealed bias was there but dormant. My conclusion is that both of you over-reacted; I would not have snapped back at Tony, but instead acknowledged that I do have a slight amount of proprietoral (spelling?) attitude and then proceeded to justify it by my contributions. Likewise, I am not critical of Tony for making a small typo. We all do. Also, his comment wasn't "evil," but I think I would not have been as critical of Duck regarding the turnip truck comment. Duck has done enough other weird things to criticize, but he also benevolently put in a link to my court case in the activism and protest section back on May 14, two days before my birthday. I bragged about my prowess in court, win lose or draw, and he continues to make generally responsible edits, but if you have time, Tony, you are welcome to keep an eye on us, so long as you follow the context and discussion. --GordonWattsDotCom 1 July 2005 01:12 (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&mdash;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, "[t]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)

All three neurologists?
The statement, all three neurologists, confuses the former text, Five doctors were selected to provide their expert testimony to the trial: two by Schiavo's parents, two by Mr. Schiavo, and one by the court. --Viriditas | Talk 06:25, 30 May 2005 (UTC)