Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pitchka (talk | contribs) at 02:49, 16 December 2005. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Discussion of Contributions of Patsw

patsw 01:46, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I like your re-introduction of the Zogby poll, and I think you worded it fairly. But what's my opinion. There seems to be a lot of hostility here to that poll.

My position is that it is best to put the facts out there and let individual readers decide. I added the link to the raw poll report, and I don't think it is reasonable for anyone to quarrel with that.

I believe that the questions are indeed pertinent, and there is value in contrasting them with the questions of the ABC and CBS polls. Also, and very important, the Zogby poll was taken very late when there was increased public awareness. For example, the ABC poll begins by asking if respondents were paying close attention, and about half of them were not. Those people would not be expected to have informed opinions. By the time of the Zogby poll, attention was very high and there had been more time for people to hear about the controversial issues.

Tropix 06:10, 2005 Apr 12 (UTC)

User Pic

Hi! I found your user pic just now and, as part of the wikipedia image tagging project, I'm marking it as yours and listing that you release it into the public domain for copyright purposes. If this is at all inaccurate, please feel free to correct it. --InShaneee 03:53, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is my image and it is public domain. patsw 17:38, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Welcome to Misplaced Pages

Hi, Pat. Welcome aboard. Jdavidb 17:34, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

PDF file

Thanks for your email. I was just able to download the file for the first time through Mozilla and I'm reading it at this moment. I don't know what the error was, but I think it had something to do with using an external download accelerator instead of just the browser. --Viriditas | Talk 03:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Francis Cardinal Spellman

I removed the dispute and dubious tags from the Cardinal Spellman article because I think your complaint had been taken care of. Please have a look at the article and comment on the Talk: page if you disagree. Remes 05:42, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

What's in the article now is fine. I made that edit when I had less experience than I have now. patsw 13:13, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My "irrelevant observation"

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—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, "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 18:04, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

The standard for the determination made by Greer was "clear and convincing".

I pulled this from a Newsday account from April 15, 2003

At that trial, Michael testified he and his wife talked about life support when Terri's grandmother was ill. "She said, 'If I ever have to be a burden to anybody, I don't want to live like that,'" he said.

He also testified the two watched a television documentary about people on life support. "She made the comment to me that she would never want to be like that," he said at the trial. Michael said he told Terri he felt the same way and has since written into his will instructions not to be kept on life support.

Michael's older brother, Scott Schiavo, and Michael's sister-in-law, Joan Schiavo, who is married to a different brother, also testified Terri made similar comments to them. Scott said he talked with Terri at a luncheon after a funeral for Scott's grandmother, who had spent weeks unconscious on a ventilator.

"Terri made mention at that conversation," Scott said, "that 'If I ever go like that, just let me go. Don't leave me there. I don't want to be kept alive on a machine.' Pretty much everybody at that table that was in the discussion had made the same comment."

The only testimony supporting Michael Schiavo's recall of Terri's wishes were Joan Schiavo and Scott Schiavo. Michael's recall (and the others' recall) of Terri's wishes came many years after her collapse -- all with an interest in seeing Michael prevail in the legal conflict with the Schindlers.

These wishes, if true, do not reflect "informed consent" and any contemplation of a condition not at the end of life -- not shortening natural life by 10, 20, or 30 years.

Unlike a rational state like New York where the decision to withdraw medical treatment must be dated, signed and witnessed, Florida permits a judge to determine this by "clear and convincing" evidence.

Then there is Diane Meyer's testimony which Greer found to not be credible -- first on Greer's error that Meyer got the year wrong when it turned out that Greer got the date wrong -- then when the error was pointed out to Greer, he declared that he was going to find Meyer's testimony not credible anyway. What would be Meyer's interest in lying?

Richard Pearse, one of Terri's guardians ad litem did not find the three Schiavo's 1998 recall of Terri's wishes from ten years prior to be "clear and convincing" especially given the conflict of interest in Michael inheriting Terri's part of the malpractice award.

If Terri had made the wishes that Michael recalled in 1998 in writing or to people without a financial interest in the outcome, I could accept it. Of course Greer doesn't answer to me, but to me and millions who have read the testimony, orders, and news accounts, Greer's determination of "clear and convincing" was wrong -- it was not "clear" and not "convincing" that Terri would choose to end her life by dying of thirst, 10, 20, 30 years ahead of its natural end. In fact, many people with living wills, and aware at the end, choose not to implement the death option. patsw 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

For your edification

cardiac arrest ≠ myocardial infarct
No need to thank me. Your enlightenment will be thanks enough. Duckecho 15:16, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I always knew the difference. The mystery is your concern for my knowlege of this. patsw 16:14, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Because you keep trying to link the ME's finding of no evidence of myocardial infarct with the readily documented cardiac arrest that led to encephalytic anoxia in the initial medical crisis. The two (myocardial infarct and cardiac arrest) are not related. Please acknowledge that you understand there is no link and that you will refrain from trying to make one (which you have at least twice) and I won't bring it up again. Duckecho 16:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm back

Hi, Pat. I'm alive and well, but have been extremely busy. I have a backlog of unanswered messages to deal with, too, but I see from the Schiavo talk page that I need to get back quickly. Expect a few contributions from me in the next few hours. Ann Heneghan 16:27, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

(Update: I've just realized from your user page that you call yourself "Patrick". I assumed that it was "Pat" because of the "patsw" username. Ann Heneghan 17:03, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC))

It's Patrick in written form to provide gender disambiguation, otherwise it's Pat. patsw 18:38, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:21, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Catholic

Hi, Patsw. Any additional thoughts on the page for Catholic? Really like to get that one worked out. Thanks & God bless... KHM03 12:49, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Comments from A ghost

Pat (may I call you Pat?). Would you mind chatting with me thru my Talk page, or email? You have some concerns that I noticed on the Talk pages of others, but...it seemed rude to jump into a "private" conversation. Anyway, I'm encouraging the other Terri Schiavo editors to "read for the enemy". I certainly don't view you as an enemy, but I do want to be able to better view the subject on your terms. Can you please help me?--ghost 5 July 2005 16:26 (UTC)

RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:24, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'

• Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:53, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Polls

Thanks for the heads-up on the poll about insults. In return, I'll tell you about a somewhat similar matter. In the article about Ted Kennedy, some people want to insert material about the rape allegation against Kennedy's nephew. Kennedy himself wasn't charged with anything. His nephew was acquitted. I pointed out that the same reasoning would call for larding the George W. Bush article with material about his brother's financial malfeasance (and ban from working in the banking industry), his wife's having killed a teenager by running a stop sign, and his daughters being busted (and pleading no contest) for underage drinking. Some people are so keen to throw mud at Kennedy that they'll happily accept these inserts to the Bush article. I think all this crap should stay out. Including notable insults about the subject of an article is one thing, but this crowd wants to clutter a prominent person's article with negative stuff about the subject's relatives. It seems to me to involve many of the same evils that concerned you about the insults, in terms of maintaining Misplaced Pages's overall tone. If you want to chime in, it's at Talk:Ted Kennedy#Quickpoll (with a few dozen kilobytes of argument preceding it, if you're feeling really masochistic). JamesMLane 06:02, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Pat, your feedback is sought

Pat, I put you down for "1/2" a vote, as I recall, in the Schiavo talk page, regarding my claim of a slim concensus regarding mentioning euthanasia. Please come on over and formally weight in. Thx,--GordonWattsDotCom 18:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Maybe not JUST a Catholic Editor

Not only do I like the fact that you're interested in removing anti-Catholic POV (I'm Catholic myself), I also enjoy the fact that you seem to try to remain as unbiased as possible WHILE removing it. Thanks for your work in trying to keep things as neutral as possible! Stanselmdoc 21:50, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for message

Hi, Pat. Thanks for your message. Will have a look at Village Pump. I'm a bit busy at the moment, as my brother is home from England with his family. Glad to see you're still appearing on the Schiavo talk page. Hope all is well with you. Regards. Ann Heneghan 00:27, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Hahaha

Thanks for the advice, patsw. I'll keep that in mind. Clearly I get carried away sometimes, but I try to make sure that I ask if I can delete it beforehand. Thanks though. Stanselmdoc 21:01, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

Famekeeper

It appears that you had not previously encountered Famekeeper. He is, in my opinion, a very problematical editor, but that is only my opinion. He appears to be trying to present a theory to the effect that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, and other Catholic leaders are guilty of complicity in the Holocaust for supporting the rise of Adolf Hitler. My own view is that some of those leaders made moral errors that are more obvious in hindsight than were obvious to them at the time in failing to recognize that Nazism was as dangerous as Communism, but at the same time they must be given the benefit of the doubt as to what they knew at the time. However, I will not try to present my analysis (which is that the situation was tragic and all choices were imperfect) at length here.

In any case, Famekeeper has a theory that I have seen nowhere else that Pope Pius XI, Pope Pius XII, Ludwig Kaas, etc., "excommunicated themselves against their own souls", based on his interpretation of canon law, and that a canon law proceeding should be initiated against them now. After filling pages and pages of talk page space with that argument, that is what I told him to drop.

Famekeeper does not know how to summarize, and always goes on at length.

If you get sufficiently annoyed, you might want to visit Misplaced Pages:Requests for comment/Famekeeper. Then again, you might not.

I see that Famekeeper has not seen your user page. When he does, he will probably accuse you of being an agent of the Vatican trying to censor Misplaced Pages (as he has one other editor). Robert McClenon 11:36, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, he has done that. I'm that one editor and I hope I do not draw his attention to this page.

I wanted to thank you for your message on my talk page. Yes, the Theology of B16 is a bit uneven. I was against its creation (this was done to slim down the main B16 article) and my attempt to reform it, as the first post on the talk page says, came to nothing, due to time constraints and pre-occupation with some other issue.

I also agree with what you posted on P12 regarding the use of talk pages. That in fact was my first and main conflict with FK. He's mostly harmless on the article pages but he uses the Talk pages for his "message.

Str1977 20:26, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

Just a quick technical note, Pat: please post all your messages in the bottom section designated for this. It's easier for me to find the new message and I can do the pidgeon holing myself. Thanks for your cooperation. Str1977 22:20, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

Dear Patsw, the problem with FK is a mixture of both things: his belief in a vast catholic conspiracy and his editing inabilities. He himself said somewhere that he wrote as he thinks, which explains his style quite well. I guess he also jumps to conclusions when listening to stuff and then is "emotionally bound to his opinion" (quote from Dilbert's boss). This is my explanation for the whole conspiracy thing and also for his latest post on Jimbo's page (I mean: the CDU party is "the christian right"? Please!) Also, his complaint about a Ratzinger approach to abortion makes it obvious that he hasn't though the through the issues he posts about or rather that he hasn't managed to integrate all his opinions into a consistent stance. And we already knew his complete unability to see that Communism at one time was a threat.

But I agree with what you posted. Str1977 09:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)

Offensive article

Hi, Pat. Are you offended by this article and its talk page? This edit drew my attention to it. Ann Heneghan 20:46, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. It's offensive and it's indicative of the "one standard for Catholics and another standard for everyone else" that applies in the Misplaced Pages. patsw 23:20, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Venerable

I didn't add in "venerable" to the article. A policy decision was taken to no longer use styles in opening paragraphs but instead use style infoboxes. I simply transferred the style that was already there into the infobox. (Similarly, when policy was to keep styles and a band of users deleted them I reverted the deletions. I never added in the claim, simply stopped it being removed contrary to then policy.) I had nothing to do with adding the claim that he is a venerable in, simply a technical role vis-a-vis its location on the page. FearÉIREANN\ 22:26, 31 August 2005 (UTC)