Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (106057)	3/26/2005 12:50:54 PM
From: Lane3	Respond to of 793718

Speaking of contradictions, the contradiction du jour is the one about Terry saying she wants to live. Consider this... Just yesterday we had a new doctor saying that she wasn't PVS but rather minimally conscious. One of the distinctions between then is that someone minimally conscious is able to answer binary questions by blinking or raising a finger or grunting or some such. So why would this attorney ask her to verbalize "I want to live." when it would be so much simpler to ask her to blink twice if she wants to live? That would be so much easier for her to do. That they didn't ask her to do it suggests that the minimally conscious business is a stretch that they don't want confirmed.

To: Lane3 who wrote (106057)	3/26/2005 1:22:25 PM
From: D. Long	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793718

That it is family-values folks who are delegitimizing the husband's legal role in this is one of the more interesting contradictions I thought it was interesting as well. Derek

To: Lane3 who wrote (106057)	3/26/2005 1:55:37 PM
From: bela_ghoulashi	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793718

The "other side" in this case is the woman's parents. That would be family. It's an irony, perhaps, but it's not a contradiction.