Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 19:09, 9 May 2005

Your edits to the Terri Schiavo article are problematic. Your personal opinion as to her treatment and the legality of her even being placed in a hospice have no place in the article. RickK 06:22, May 9, 2005 (UTC)

I am new to editing the "talk section" and posting my comments and replies, but I will give it a try. Mr. Rick, I do not post "my views" per se, even though I agree with the diverse views I post usually.

In contrast, I post the opposing views expressed by many, and express them as such, and then back up the viewpoints that are expressed with quotes from State and/or Federal Laws.

In doing so, that is not "my view," but, instead, the view of the laws. Most have accepted my exposure of the various laws that highlight various differences, and any opposition would no doubt be construed as a personal attack.

If you disagree with me, then post an opposing viewpoint, make it brief, and cite some section of the State or Federal constitutions, state or federal laws, or case law from some state or federal court --or even perhaps the quotes from some well-known authority.

Raw criticism is a waste of energy and self-destructive, and it may be cause others to lower their opinion of you. Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 02:46, May 9, 2005 (EST)

(Now that I've burn my time up trying to get a balanced expose, please tell me what "user talk" is, and what the phrase: "User talk:RickK|K" means in the programming language. Thank you. Gordon Watts.)

Nevermind that question - I figured it out -one is a link to my "personal page," and the other is a link to a message board for me.

Now, notice that I've reported your behavior to the community. Don't get bent: One of your implications might be right: Your actinos imply that I should not have stated Greer's violation of law as "fact." (You didn't state this, but I inferred it.)

Nonetheless, your broad deletes are troubling and should be justified if you intend to deleted neutral cites to the law. Please note that I have addressed this in this link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#RickK_deleted_quotations_to_the_law_-an_inappropriate_cencure.

Gordon Wayne Watts, Lakeland, FL, USAW 03:35, May 9, 2005 (EST)

Hey, *ssh*le, I just checked out your website. If you think garbage like "You are being asked to help impeach judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case." is f*cking neutral and balanced reporting deserving to be referenced in wikipedia, you're completely out to lunch. Get a grip. And don't give me this "I post the opposing views expressed by many" crap. have some friggen balls and say it like it is. You're advocating. asking readers to "help" impeach judges is not a neutral reporting of facts. It is completely biased advocacy for a certain point of view. Calling it anything else is shite and delusional. have your propaganda site if you want, but don't link wikipedia to it alongside journalistic sites. FuelWagon 18:44, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

Fuel Wagon, can I actually answer you, or have you already made up you mind?

You're both right and wrong.

First, let me address where you're VERY wrong:

1. 1: I never posted a link to my personal website (GordonWatts.com) in the "Advocacy and commentary" links at the bottom. (I posted links to the newspaper websites, namely the ones on hometown.aol and Geocities.) I guess you missed that in your anger...

1. 2: Even if I had posted a link to my personal website, it would have been perfectly appropriate:

~~ a) The TITLE of the header was "Advocacy and commentary," not court decisions, and thus my personal site, clearly advocacy and very biased, would have been appropriate. ~~ b) Furthermore, the other sites listed there were clearly biased one way or another, so how was my site any different.

1. 3: If you have to resort to curring, you obviously don't have a point; and don't tell you didn't cuss, because that was the intent of you post, to forcibly express what you could say by reason and better arguments

• • • Ok, now here's where you were right: ***

1. 1: You were right on target when you asked posters to stay in chronological order, and when you

1. 2: asked that: "Do people get my drift here? If you're going to say the three words "Terri was PVS" then the list of overwhelming evidence"

1. 3: You implied, even if you didn't state explicitly, that I should not say "The Judge violated the law" without posting proof, but, indeed I did post proof -the state law in question.

In case you didn't know, I came closer than the brain-dead florida governor to winning terri's freedom: Look back at the court records, which are publicly available at the Florida supreme court's website and otherwise. (He lost rehearing 7-0, and I merely lsot 4-3 before the very same court on the schiavo case...)

Now, let me remind you that my edits were **usually** very neutral, where I merely offer a differing point of view and offer proof. What is on my personal website -or even ones I link -is not important. After all, the "Terri's Fight" and Terri's Blogs are all VERY biased, even more biased then my website, thank you, but I don't see you or anyone calling for their censure.

Now, you know that a lot of people subscribe to the views I hold, and you might conclude I'm right, but being right is not the point: Showing the various points of view --WITH documentation IS, so what do you propose? Gordon Watts in Lakeland, Fla. 15:08, 9 May 2005 (EST)