Jump to content

User talk:GordonWatts/Archive01

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  • DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
  • DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
  • DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
  • This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 09,2005 and May 30,2005.
  • Post replies to the main talk page, copying and pasting the section to which you are replying, if necessary. To post a reply, you merely click on the appropriate 'Edit' tab, and then you type in your comments and click on 'Save page' -unless, of course, you want to preview it first, in which case you would click on 'Show preview'. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)


Gordon,

You never got a formal greeting to Wikipedia. Allow me to correct that problem.

Welcome!

(Thank you for the welcome, GHOST. I checked out one of your links below, and learned a bit, like italics and bold face -- I think I'll try to do both here... bold and italics) I'm getting the hang of it --even if I don't have the time to check it all out, you know. --Gordon Watts, Lakeland, Fla., USA 20:00, 9 May 2005 (EST) --let's sign with the universal time stamp, eh...? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 00:01, 10 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! If you have any questions, see the help pages, add a question to the village pump or ask me on my Talk page. Again, welcome!--ghost 22:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC) (p.s.-I snagged this from what User:MacGyverMagic left on my talk page. I use the links to this day.)[reply]

personal talk pages

[edit]

Gordon, don't use my talk page as a channel to discuss stuff with other users. You posted two things on my talk page that was directed towards Duckecho and Fangz. I find it unlikely that they'll see it, (I don't go around to other users to see if you've posted something to me there) and it clutters up my talkpage. FuelWagon 18:30, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Didn't mean to clutter your page - indeed, I posted a reply on their pages too - copied and pasted it there. Maybe the better convention would be to only reply on the page of the person who posted? I still haven't figured out where to reply, and by the way, your "good buddy" NC Dave, also did not know when I once asked him, but I don't have a problem with your suggestion. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:40, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

[edit]

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/wiki/Talk:Terri_Schiavo#RickK_deleted_quotations_to_the_law_-an_inappropriate_cencure.

[1]

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)[reply]
FuelWagon has a gift for taking off the gloves and getting to the point. Although not as polite as some, like Alexander with the Gordian Knot, he cuts thru the BS.--ghost 20:03, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

~ ~ ~I see what you mean. ~ ~ ~ Well, I have answered him below.--Gordon Watts 18:01, 9 May 2005 (EST)

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...
Well, when I look at this diff, I see
I checked out www.gordonwatts.com and saw your "help impeach judges involved in the Terri Schiavo case" campaign and decided that disqualified ANYTHING from ANY of your websites (no matter what URL they're hidden under) from deserving to be on a wikipedia article as any sort of neutral source of information. all someone has to do is go looking for the .wmv file, and decide to see what is on the main webpage, and they'll see your impeachment campaign, and that's enough for me to say you crossed the line injecting your own sites onto the article. FuelWagon 22:26, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  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 cursing and foul language, 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 not 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)

I gave detailed response, in particular to you

And I responded on the Talk: Terri Schiavo page. Not to be public, but the debate is one that should be reviewed by others. Good editing! Oh, and if I may, one thing that I've found helps temper my own POV issues, is to switch to something less controversial every so often. Such as, Omnipresence. Or just take a break. It makes me a better writer.--ghost 22:37, 9 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I found the replies on the talk page, GHOST. Thx for the heads up...

Now, FUEL WAGON, why do you think it's right to edit out MY webpages (which are biased, I admidt), but not edit out the other web pages, which are VERY BIASED, for example, the actual official Terri Schiavo site. How much more biased could you get?

Awaiting for answers...

Gordon Watts in Lakeland, Fla. 19:46pm, 9 May 2005 (EST)

Your beefs and your errors

[edit]

Over on the Terri Schiavo talk page you stated: There are at least five (5) areas in which there is major dispute (plus a #6 area of additional dispute), something that is a "historical fact" that should be included in any encyclopedia, namely the following:

1) Whether Terri was PVS
2) What her wishes were
3) Whether she was terminally ill and whether this disqualified her placement in a hospice
4) Whether Terri was illegally denied therapy, rehabilitation, examination, etc.
5) The "big" one: Whether Terri was the victim of felony abuse, and whether certain rulings of the judge to deny regular food and water (after the feeding tube were pulled) stepped over the line and violated various state and federal laws.

You have to understand that in this country when there are disputes of fact they are taken to court. The court reviews the facts, hears the arguments of the proponents and opponents, and then renders a judgement. That judgement is then the law of the land. If anyone doesn't care for the decision, they may appeal it. If it is affirmed, it is still the law of the land. If it survives appeal all the way to the Supreme Court and is affirmed it is the law of the land for good. There is no further appeal. Please note that if any appellate court declines to hear the case it is the same as affirming the lower court decision and is the law of the land. Now as to your points:

1) The court ruled and it was affirmed at every level that she was in a PVS. Although you may not agree with that, it is the law of the land and indisputable.
The laws clearly prohibit that, namely the law that says that, in order to be declared PVS, there has to can't be ANY cognitive behavior, and we've all seen the videos.
Oh, please. You're going to present 4 minutes and 30 seconds of carefully selected and edited video out of more than four hours taken to make your lay (non-legal and non-medical) case that she wasn't PVS?
There were only several minutes of video. So? What's your point? Are you saying that you need hours and hours to determine if she displayed some sort of cognitive behavior? Better re-read the law there, buddy: It doesn't say PVS is the absense of repetitively demonstrated cognitive behavor; it says that PVS is the absense of ANY cognitive behavior, and even a little bit, like 2-3 minutes disqualifies Terri. That is enough to prove you're wrong, and so I probably shouldn't bring in another example, because you might get side tracked and say "Well Terri isn't a bank robber," but lets assume you won't be that easily distrcted; If a cop sees a video of a person holding up a bank, and he identifies the person, he or she STILL need only see a few minutes, not hours and hours -jusr enough to see if the person committed the crime. You're making things way to complicated, so re-read only the first part, before I start talking about bank robbers, and see if you can understand why you're wrong. Duck echo, although you may not agree with that, this legal definition is the law of the land and indisputable. Hey! Did I just borrow some of your words...
This series of responses is my last post on your page as it is too tiring to try and play Whack-a-Mole with you. The significance of the carefully selected and edited 4 minutes and 30 seconds of video vs the four plus hours of total video is not as you portray. The snippets capture the rare and random confluence of stimulus and action (not reaction). They are presented to try and portray cognition where the four plus other hours clearly demonstrate (with repeated attempts with the same stimuli) there is none. They didn't throw out four plus hours of cause and effect. They worked hard to get footage (inchage is more like it) that appears to show cognitive behavior and the only way they could was to catch the happy accidents where Mary said, "hi," and at that moment Terri's random eye movement passed her mother. If you look solely at that few frames it looks like Mary talked and Terri responded. But if you see the whole four hours where Mary tried many, many times to get Terri to respond to no avail, it's clear there's nothing going on in there.
"it's clear there's nothing going on in there." NOTHING is clear, and we only need look at http://KatesJourney.com as an example. This woman was VERY unresponsive. (More like a zombie, with almost no movement. So, you can't go jumping to conclusions. Only two people know if Terri was "in there" or not, and those being Terri and "God." (Besides, as I point out in numerous other places, even IF Terri were PVS, a whole slew of laws were broken, and even IF they weren't, nonetheless the ongoing public dispute over these points is very newsworthy. Arg... --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:52, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
...She's got some cognitive behavior, even if we don't know what it is...
And your MD in Neurology is from where?
The fact I have no MD is irrelevant because many doctors -probably more than half who have opined -say that Terri is NOT pvs; Further, I have a BS in Biological and Chemical Science (double major) from The Florida State University -with honors. What life-science degree do you have?
I don't have a life science degree. But then I'm not postulating that she has cognitive behavior despite the evidence that's been presented and ruled upon.
If you defend listing info on the court decisions, then the actual law should be listed even more, when it is law that has not been overturned as unconstitutional such as this one, as outlined on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state
Quoting that site: (12) "Persistent vegetative state" means a permanent and irreversible condition of unconsciousness in which there is:
(a) The absence of voluntary action or cognitive behavior of any kind.
(b) An inability to communicate or interact purposefully with the environment.
This legal definition is found in State Law 765.101(12). >2004->Ch0765->Section%20101#0765.101 (http://flsenate.gov/statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Display_Statute&Search_String=&URL=Ch0765/SEC101.HTM&Title=-)
When did anyone rule that law unconstitutional? On the contrary, Greer ruled that she met the standard and found that she was in a PVS.
That's my point --this law was NOT ruled unconstitutional, and neither was 825.102(3), which made Greer's denial of food a felony. (Don't confuse the two; Feeding tube was disconnected, but oral food and water was also denied, in violation of 825.102(3), the law that makes this act a felony. Ch. 825 was never overturned or ruled unconstitutional, and neither was ch. 765, so Greer was in violation of them, and legislated from the bench, a separation of powers violation. Period.
Again, you don't seem to have much of a grasp of the legal system. Ruling a law unconstitutional is only one of several processes by which the laws are interpreted. Remember, that's what the judiciary does. In the case of 765.101(12) Greer ruled that she indeed met both standards and was in a PVS. I see a lot of Flat Earthers throwing 825.102(3) around and I can only say two things. If it's true that Greer violated it (and I find it very difficult to believe a sitting judge would) why hasn't there been any judges or prosecutors pursuing it?
Something I'm sure you're going to have trouble with is understanding that had Greer permitted oral food and water he might as well have put a gun to her head. Terri could not swallow voluntarily as had been demonstrated in '91, '92, and '93 swallowing tests. To feed her orally was to virtually guarantee aspiration, asphyxiation (or infection), and death. And before you throw in the saliva swallowing, you will be pleased to learn that that swallowing is a reflex, brain stem function. Voluntary swallowing requires cortex.
2) The court ruled and it was affirmed at every level that her wish was not to live in that state. Moreover, the adjudicating court was required to rule to a standard of clear and convincing evidence; the highest standard of evidence. Although you may not agree with that, it is the law of the land and indisputable.
No, the highest standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt," and the standard you mention is an intermediate standard:
I stand corrected on that point. The overriding and immutable point, however, is that Terri's wishes to not be kept alive were confirmed, not to a mere standard of preponderance of the evidence but to the higher standard of clear and convincing evidence (which is the required standard in the case of adjudicating a ward's wishes). It is the law of the land and indisputable.
Duck Echo, I was not trying to make fun of you for making a small mistake here. If you scan the Talk Page on Schiavo, you will see I made quite a few errors myself, and I am trying to make good for them as well as get back on path. These errors included but are not limited to (human error on my part) accusing FuelWagon of deleting things, and then forgetting that I had done so, and also (due to being new and not knowing the rules of WIKI) talking about the merits of the Schiavo case on the talk page. We were all wrong to do that, most of all myself, because the talk page is supposed to be to discuss the merits of adding an item, not to discuss the merits of the item itself. The latter is left for opinion pieces. Thank you for bearing with me on these and other points. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 02:15, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'm glad you admit when you're wrong, but ponder this: Just because it went to all the courts and was upheld by th highest court is still not proof this was true. If the courts were always right, then Dred Scott would be a slave, because the US Supreme Court upheld a lower court ruling to this effect, but we both know that's not true. Use some other proof of your assertion -"the courts ruled" is evidence, but not overwhelming proof.
Sorry, you're wrong. When the courts rule, it is the law of the land; proof, evidence, whatever. It may have to go to the Supreme Court (many, many rulings never make it past the first level, and many more never make it past the court of appeals), but when the dust has settled, it's the law of the land. Overwhelming proof, if you will, as there is no recourse. That's why we're still stuck with the shrub as president.
I pointed out to you the issues with the Dred Scott case that you keep waving like a banner. Dred Scott was a slave by the court's ruling. The Emancipation Proclamation effectively set that aside, and once the XIV Amendment was ratified, the court could not have ruled that way again. That's how the system of jurisprudence evolves in this country. To us in the 21st Century it was an odious ruling, and in some respects (not legal ones) it was in 1857, too. But in terms of the law of the land at the time, it was arguably correct.
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22clear+and+convincing%22+beyond+doubt
Article 6

... Yet, these are descriptions of clear and convincing evidence, not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. (See Lillian Fv Superior Court (84) 160 CA3d 314, ... www.juryinstruction.com/article_section/ articles/article_archive/article06.htm - 10k - Cached at:

http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:Vih7rIWahEQJ:www.juryinstruction.com/article_section/articles/article_archive/article06.htm+%22clear+and+convincing%22+beyond+doubt&hl=en
See also: "Finally, the Turner court rejected the "clear and convincing" evidence standard because under Texas rules of procedure juries could be instructed only under a beyond-a-reasonable-doubt or a preponderance standard of proof." at: http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:8dhAh-sruZAJ:biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/psyc/addington.htm+%22clear+and+convincing%22+beyond+doubt&hl=en
and at: http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/cases/psyc/addington.htm
3) I don't even know how to respond to this. What difference does it make whether she was or wasn't? There was certainly ample opportunity to raise the question if it was an issue. That it wasn't raised points to a lack of issue. So what?
Of course it was raised. That the Schindlers lost does not prove it wasn't raised. And, so what if it wasn't raised? Is this any less worthy of chronicling than when the UN failed to raise the plight of the Jews in the International courts until such time as they did?
You know injecting the plight of the Jews into every discussion borders on an infraction of Godwin's Law. If it was raised and ruled against, it wasn't an issue.
I was unfamiliar with this law, but it looks like some cat named Goodwin was beaten in an argument by someone that used the terms "Nazi" or "Jew" or "Holocaust." It sounds like you and Goodwin want to limit my free speech to make a point, and that sounds like "sore loser" strategy, although I would agree with the postulate that the "Nazi arguments" alone are not enough to make a case. (The "Nazi arguments" are my term for general arguments that indicate human morals can not be fully trusted.) I make many arguments beyond the Nazi argument, and therefore I do not violate the spirit of the Goodwin rule, thank you.
4) Again, I can't help but believe that if there was an issue here the question would have been raised and adjudicated.
It was raised an adjudicated, in favor of declaring Terri PVS.
Ah! Then there isn't an issue.
Of course, it was an issue, or else a lot of people would not have raised it. In fact, the recent Zogby poll found that MOST Americans agreed with the contention that denial of oral food and water was inappropriate, and I would suspect that most, if not a sizable number, think that Terri was not PVS. Since everybody knows that many people think Terri was not PVS, whether she was or not, it certainly was an issue. But I ask: "So what?"
Sorry, once Greer found Terri to be in a PVS, the issue became moot, which is to say there isn't an issue. Public opinion doesn't mean squat. Especially since most (including you) don't have any idea of the consequences of allowing oral food and water. If that had been explained the poll would certainly have had vastly different results.
5) There was ample opportunity for these questions to be raised in court if there was substance to them. If they were and were found not to be issues then the point is moot.

Clearly, you were not in court, you did not hear testimony, you were not able to analyze affect, you could not ask questions of the parties, and you do not have a working knowledge of the appplicable law. It amuses me that given all of those shortcomings you seem to think that you still have a clearer picture than the judge who did have all of those advantages and was involved in it from the beginning, having the additional advantage of continuity. Duckecho 18:32, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Clearly you do not know your history. I was in court many times, and I personally heard David Gibbs tell judge Whitemore that Terri should be fed by mouth because she was going to die after the feeding tube was removed.
Well, duh! Of course she was going to die without the life support. I don't know of anyone that disagrees with that contention. That you heard it means nothing. And I note that although I was talking about the adjudicating court, that is Greer's, you elected to talk about a visit to a federal court. My point about being in court was that Greer was there every minute; you weren't. You are not qualified to speak to the evidence and the players as if you had reviewed it to the level he has. I believe Matt Conigliaro, an attorney, refers to the importance of that on his website. Of course you'll think that's some biased lawyer's tack and dismiss it, I'm sure.
You missed my reply. I disagreed with your claim that I wasn't in court (it is a historical fact that I was), and I disagreed with your claim that I did not have a clear picture of the situation. To prove the last item, I mentioned my involvement in the case, as more than a mere side-line quarterback. In case you don't know it, ANYONE would die if you denied both a feeding tube and standard food and water. The fact that she was sentenced to die no more made her terminal than sentencing a killer makes HIM "terminal," and, like in the case with the killer, if the person's not terminally ill, they can't legally be in a hospice. Now, the courts may have declared her terminal, but, clearly she wasn't: Terminally ill people are, by law, those people who are expected to die within six months. No one in their right mind could say that a person who live din a hospice for almost five years (April 2000 to March 2005) is terminal. That was fraud, plain and simple, and a bogus Kangaroo court does not make it right.
You and your sentenced to die line of thinking. If you could only step back and look at the issues dispassionately you would be so much better off. If you'd read the judgements you would be aware that, for example, Terri's Law was overturned as unconstitutional on privacy grounds. Why is that? Because the court ruled, on clear and convincing evidence, that Terri would not have wanted to live under the conditions of artificial life support. She would have said, and has the right to say, "pull the plug." Michael asked the court to direct her wishes to be fulfilled, and it did. Read the motions that led to the last two disconnctions. They deal with the court directing that the ward's wishes be fulfilled.
I did hear Terri's testimony via video tape...
Wait!!! You heard Terri testify? The woman who hadn't exhibited a scintilla of cognitive function in fifteen years? How come this didn't get nationwide media coverage? Woman in PVS talks. It's like the Second Coming. I suspect you mean you saw some video. Did you see the full four hours plus? Or just the carefully selected and edited 4 minutes and 30 seconds?
Yes! I did hear her, and you can too:
http://gordonwatts.com/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
http://hometown.aol.com/GordonWWatts/myhomepage/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=ConversationWithTerri.wmv
http://www.blogsforterri.com/video/ConversationWithTerri.wmv
I said that I heard Terri "testify." I didn't say I heard Terri "talk." Read the details...
...and claimed that she was not terminally ill by the state definitions, and my case got further in court than the Governor's case.
Well, as I said, that's what courts are for. His claims (and yours) were found to be without merit.
His case was SC04-925, and he was shot down 7-0 in both his initial hearing and his rehearing. I lost a split decision in my case before the SAME court on the SAME issue. The case number to this case, one of several I had, was SC03-2420, in case you want to research it. My loss was only 4-3, thank you:
Uh, I know that a self-aggrandizing blowhard such as yourself thinks that there are degrees of loser, but the fact is, you lost. You didn't prevail. You are winless. You are bereft of victory. There are no gradations of it. You might as well have lost leventy million to zero. It's still an L.
If I was such a "loser," then why didn't I lose 7-0 ...or a 7,000-to-0...?
You lost. Period.
"See self aggrandizing blowhard..." I didn't see you do anything in court. At least I did something, and many people (as in LOTS OF positive feedback and hits on my site) think I am right, and that I was right when I was defeated in court.
http://www.prweb.com/releases/2005/2/prweb212613.htm
Quoting your own press release. See self aggrandizing blowhard above. I used to work with a guy just like you. I'll describe you the same way I described him: if one could buy you for what you're worth and sell you for what you think you're worth, one would be wealthy.
http://press.arrivenet.com/nfp/article.php/603000.html
http://hometown.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/PressRelease02-25-2005.html
http://geocities.com/Gordon_Watts32313/PressRelease02-25-2005.html
Geez, I wouldn't go arounding trumpeting geocities, aol, and tripod as your home base. Not if you want to be taken seriously. They are strictly for amateurs...cheap amateurs.
OK, how about ...THIS for a base:
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf (Fla. Supreme Court's listing of me)
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf (this one was Bush's case -- LOSER -- **cough**)
http://search.access.gpo.gov/supreme-court/SearchRight.asp?ct=Supreme-Court-Dockets&q1=gordon+and+watts (US Supreme Court's mention of me)
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=%22gordon+watts%22+Schiavo (google speaks about me)
http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=%22gordon+watts%22+Schiavo&sm=Yahoo%21+Search&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1&ei=UTF-8 (get the picture...?)
Geez, get a grip, GordonWattsDotCom. Those last two are links to your other, already discredited pages. And by the way, next time you write your own press release, you are not an alumni of FSU, you're an alumnus. Both the supreme court links are just more affirmation of looooooser.

--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 19:29, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, in case you take offense at self aggrandizing blowhard, look around wikipedia. People choose usernames that are like names. Sort of pseudonyms. Like Duckecho, Professor-ninja, RickK, or Gordon, etc. But instead of going for convention, and even eschewing the more look at me! GordonWatts, what did you choose? I rest my case. Duckecho 20:36, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I don't take offense at that -there are bigger problems, but at least I still have my first amendment rights, ha ha. I earned them, and it's time to ca$h in, lol.
Once again, your lack of understanding of legal matters is astounding. You don't have first amendment rights on the internet. The 1st Amendment says that Congress shall pass no law abridging the right of free speech. That means the government can't silence you. It does not, however, guarantee you a forum. Moreover, commercial venues, such as newspapers, radio stations, and the internet are not obligated to afford you a forum, either.
Let me conclude in saying that you aren't right about the facts simply because "the court said so." Either you're right or your wrong, and if you say that the trial court judge, Greer, was "right" in his rulings, or that he followed the law, then you are wrong; many times, he violated the law, and a judge must uphold, comply with ... uh.. OBEY!! the law, hello? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 22:44, 11 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again with the lack of legal understanding. When the court says so, those are facts. Period. Your only option, once the court has ruled, is to appeal. As you are no doubt well aware, there is a finite number of appeals available. When the state court of appeals, the state supreme court, the federal district court, the federal court of appeals, and the U.S. Supreme Court affirm (either directly or by declining to hear the case; same result) the judge's rulings, they have certified that the judge made the correct ruling. And if it's not enough for you to infer that concurrence, the 2nd District CoA in their affirmance of the 2002 (I belive it was) trial, not only upheld the procedural issues (appelate courts normally deal with procedural issues; rarely do they rule on the facts or retry the case) they, having reviewed the facts, asserted that had they heard the case they would have ruled the same way. It doesn't get any more right than that. And, he followed the law, hello? Duckecho 05:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Terri Schiavo

[edit]

Four points:

1/ I explained why the diagnosis is correct. You can if you choose dispute that the moon is made of rocks and is made of cheese. This doesn't mean that it's incorrect to say that it's made of rocks. So long as we report that it is your opinion that it is made of cheese, we're cool. Schiavo was diagnosed by the physicians who attended her. The diagnosis is made according to criteria, which they believed that she met. This means that their diagnosis was correct. Most doctors would concur that it was because most would concur that direct observation and testing are the correct means of diagnosing disorders. You are not in any case truly disputing the diagnosis, which you are not competent to do, but what was done with it.

Of course both I myself, and actual doctors were not in a position to first-hand review it, and thus be able to have data to properly dispute. However, that leads to this cogent point: Do you know why we weren't? ANSWER: The judge and guardian (Mike Schiavo) would not permit it. THIS raises a second point: Why? Only if they had something to hide would they stonewall and keep Terri hidden incommunicado. Bingo!
"Do you know why we weren't?" Yes. It was none of your business. HTH. Grace Note 07:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"It was none of your business." Maybe so, but "Due Process," and decency mandates that someone should be able to independently examine Terri, and that is why we know that the courts' (plural possesive) refusal to accomidate "real" doctors -repeatedly, I might add -was quite wrong, and probably violation of constitutional protections. But I digress, as the merits of the case are not relevent to our discussion on finding newsworthy edits. "HTH" Meaning, "Hope this helps." Yes, it does a little, thank you. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
"This means that their diagnosis was correct." -No. It means that they diagnosed her as such. Period. Don't add to or take away from what is known. "Most doctors would concur that it was..." I believe (but am not sure) that most doctors concurred with the Schindlers; the list of professionals with long letters after their names signing affidavits in supports of Bob & Mary Schindler indicates that MOST professionals on the outside looking in felt Terri was not PVS. Yes, they were not first-hand, but whose fault was that? Assign fault where it lies: Greer & Felos & Mike Schiavo & that stupid appeals court, who denied further examination, therapy, testing, rehab, etc...

I also explained why you are wrong about saying she is in a PVS. Or was, I should say. It's correct to say she was because that is the view of her doctors, and we can cite that. We give space to opposing opinions, as is proper but that does not change the fact that she is said to be in a PVS because that is how she was diagnosed. A diagnosis is an opinion and we report opinions. Because PVS is a doctor-defined condition, and not something like the flu, that is defined by having a virus, she is in it if her doctors say she is. Your opinion, I should point out, is worth absolutely nothing, as is mine. Because I am aware of that, I do not try to insert my opinions on Ms Schiavo or her case, although naturally I do have them.

"I also explained why you are wrong about saying she is in a PVS." I never said she was in PVS. I said that she was diagnosed as such, and that the courts ruled as much... "...that does not change the fact that she is said to be in a PVS..." CORRECT! She was said to be in pvs. "...because that is how she was diagnosed." Again, you are correct! She was diagnosed as such. So, why do you say I disagree with you...?
I cannot help you further. You seem to be having difficulty understanding what I wrote. I'm happy to help you with your difficulties with the article but I can't help you with comprehension. Grace Note 07:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I don't fully know your point of view, but I hope I've exlained myself well. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

2/ To insert comments: Open the window to edit an article. Scroll down the page until you can see an empty box, with written beside it "Edit summary" (which is underlined because it is wikilinked). Write in the box whatever you want to say about the edit. Please don't write letters to other editors or any other kind of long communication. A brief note is all that's needed. Long stuff goes on the talkpage. Sometimes the box may have the heading of the section in it, if you are editing a section and not the whole page. Don't delete the text. It helps people see what the edits about. Just write your summary after it. Let me know if this is not clear.

I'm trying it out as I "speak." Thank you...

3/ I disagree with you. We work on the assumption that a reader reads the whole article, and that there is no need to keep on linking keywords (or at least I do). In any case, you linked it incorrectly. I suggest you consult this page, to get a better feel for how to use the interface.

Let me tell you that the first time I saw Wikipedia, I freaked out over the number of links, so your assertion has some validity. However, upon reflection, let me point out that MANY things are linked, like the verious DATES and stuff. Huh!? Who really cares about the "story behind January 01, on so-and-so year?" Get my drift here? So, if you don't have a problem with WIKI providing links to really UNRELATED things like dates and such, what's the problem with linking RELATED stuff, like the PVS term. Upon further review, although I do not feel your intentions were malicious or anything, nonetheless, I hold that your deletion of the PVS link to be unsubstantiated by any reasonable justification and reverse, for the reasons herein.
I will simply remove your link if you put it back. I know that people put in rubbish links. They're trying to be helpful, sometimes without enough regard for the reader. You're welcome to remove their links too. Grace Note 07:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't see your comment here, because you didn't indent your paragraph. I fixed that, and indented mine even further, which is the "proper convention," I believe. You seem pretty convinced, but, you are wrong. If you disagree with me, take it up with the community. In other words, "appeal the ruling." That's what all these corrupt judges tell the defendants in court all the time, isn't it? Besides, once I got used to it, I learned to ignore the links, and this discipline of ignoring harmless things is a skill the readers should learn, so I am not inclined to remove others' links. Also, I would risk angering or provoking them over something trivial. Thank you for the thought, but I decline to tamper with trivial matters. You might follow my example here. In conclusion, it is in everybody's best interest that we not waste loads of time arguing over trivial matters. Loads of time lost is not justified by the small gains that might be had in such an argument. Trust me. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:33, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

4/ You are not being picked on. You are trying to insert a POV and you are being resisted. Argue for your changes on the talkpage. Listen to objections and try to incorporate them. Be willing to compromise and allow the possibility of being convinced that the other side is right. Best of all, work on articles where you don't feel so strongly about the subject material. There are half a million and more to choose from. Grace Note 05:53, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I feel strongly about all things, but I don't let that get in the way of my search for the truth. In this case, inserting an occasional link is not a point of view. As far as my previous edits, in which I had said that the judge acted illegally, that was a point of view, even though I had provided some law cite to prove it was true. I changed my editing style when I found out the proper convention and format. Your edits here are reversed in part and affirmed in part. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 07:23, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I would advise you not to keep on trying to insert your POV. I've carefully explained why you are not right to do so. You're best off working on articles that you don't feel so heated about. That's the best advice you're likely to get here. Grace Note 07:32, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I won't be so cold as the courts when they disagree with a person and don't provide any explanation, so I'll elaborate: Regarding inserting my point of view, you are correct in your claim that I should not. As far as you complaining more about a relevent link than totally irrelevent links, your priorities are backwards, and further, this is not a point of view or inappropriate convention. While I can't guarentee that all my edits will stand, let me reiterate that inserting an occasional link is not a point of view. Furthermore, it might be necessary to expand the "issues of dispute" section to include more issues in dispute, but I will try not to address to many issues at once -or maybe I will --but I would prefer feedback on what other issues are noteworthy enough and what would be god formatting, like whether they should be appended to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terri_Schiavo#Issues_of_dispute section as opposed to, say, an option of a sub-header of "More issues of dispute." I prefer to get "community feedback" here, because, while this is not a difficult edit, it is difficult to keep fighting and wasting tons of time typing stuff in that often gets deleted. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thus, on this new discussion point, I'd prefer further feedback. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Response

[edit]

Aloha, Gordon. Please don't post your personal information on my talk page. I wouldn't want to be responsible. Regarding your addition of three external links, two of which are identical mirror links, Wikipedia:External links makes it clear that Adding links to one's own page is strongly discouraged. Also, the page recommends adding links to high content pages that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article, as well as anything useful and relevant. I don't find your links meeting this basic criteria. As for your changes, I've already explained my issues in the edit summaries, and I find your statement, many other doctors were not allowed to examine Terri, which left unresolved many issues of dispute as well as your changes to be POV. --Viriditas | Talk 12:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for replying Now, let me see if I can address each of these points, starting with the ones you list, and then exporing any revisions that were not mentioned.

From above:

  • Thank you for protecting my personal information; I wasn't worried, but it doesn't hurt to be safe.
  • While you're right, I'm not just adding "Gordon's links." do some research: NO ONE did better than did I when comparing me to those who tried to save Terri is court. Yes, I lost in court, and Terri is dead, but I scored higher than did anyone. Here are primer links to get started:[2], [3], [4], [5] My links are no less relevant than the links from Terri's Blogs and Terri's Fight. In fact, both places have listed my links, so if they think my pages are relevant, WIKI should no dispute this.
  • See also on http://www.blogsforterri.com/ where Gordon watts' website is mentioned. Guess whose site that is? (Mine) Wiki should see the trend, and note that I have become a part of history, whatever else my human faults may be... and my advocacy - commentary pages have less spelling errors than here, I think... Stongly discourage, yes, but adding links to my page is almost obligatory, so it should be done for the sake of the "Wiki" encyclopedia reader.
  • I know I had mirrors - but you don't put all your eggs in one basket, but you must "diversify," in case you have a bad link from when a page goes down or has a slow server.
  • As far as your concern about my statement many other doctors were not allowed to examine Terri, which left unresolved many issues of dispute -- that may be a little vague, even if not biased, and maybe I should clarify it to explain that there was much public outcry and disagreement and dispute among the public when the courts prevented additional doctors from examining Terri.

However, I will leave the current version alone: Too many edits rock the boat and make people want to revert to some old Cave Man era version, lol. Although you are right that this edit could be rephrased, it is ok as is, just a little ...uh... vague: "areas of dispute" -- where.

If you want to, you might edit it yourself to say instead: many other doctors were not allowed by the courts to examine Terri, which prevented many questions from being answered and fueled the fire for public debate in many areas of dispute (since it links to a section below, it might be better to leave alone)

Before I look for other areas that need to be addressed, let me assure you that there are probably other people who will be very tempted to revert back, so we should get their opinion and let time takes its course. OK, let me see if you erased any other cool edits I made...

  • Even though Cantus had messed with (erased and reverted/deleted) my edits, his addition of this quote was good and should NOT have been erased on revert: "...prompted a fierce debate over bioethics, euthanasia, legal guardianship, federalism, and civil rights." (It set the tone in a short, succinct, and to the point manner; it was a good intro.)
  • "To support their claims, the submitted many legal affidavits from medical professionals that supported further testing and/or disputed the diagnosis of PVS. [6]" This is a historical fact -and very interesting; while it supports one point of view, the statements make no conclusions, and the article has other "Pro-PVS" documentation, so it is not unbalanced. The many medical professionals' affidavits is not really mentioned anywhee else -or if it is, it is not obvious. This is valueeable and should stay.
  • Notice if you would this [7] diff: In these edits, I not only put links to commentary pages and "compiltion" pages that I had created and compiled, --but also, I fixed Abstract Appeal's, link, putting in a link to the author's personal webpage, on the site where he is a lawyer -distinct and different than his other link. This is not vanity -I am fixing ALL the bad links, not just "my own," lol.
  • In conclusion, don't just say "hey, that looks different," and revert (which erases all my hard work) --but, instead, carefully see if you can determine from the "history" diffs what it is I did. You can locate the few changes I make with this tool, right? Thank you for your review --even if you disagree with me on some points, please review all of them carefully before erasing the whole lot. Thx, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 13:08, 14 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
My brief reply follows: Aside from your obvious bias on this subject, you are obviously knowledgeable about the case. Instead of pushing controversial changes, you could try to build goodwill by contributing neutral and uncontested content that you find missing in the article. Read the NPOV page for some hints on how to do this. --Viriditas | Talk 08:19, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the positive feedback - your suggestions seem reasonable, and, if I get a chance to do anything, I hope to not rock the boat or allienate or offend my neighbors. Slow, small changes may be more safe. Take care; later, --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 08:23, 15 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]


signing every paragraph

[edit]

"Wagon asking me to sign each end every paragraph." I take it back. You are (1) paragraph happy (inserting returns between sentences that would just as easily be read in one paragraph), (2) verbose enough to choke a horse, (3) unable to boil down your ramblings into any specific argument that can be dealt with and (4) unmoved by anything that disagrees with your point of view. Put those together and you've essentially vomitted on every talk page you post. FuelWagon 12:54, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I almost didn't see you comment. (Explanation below.) My answer to you (at least) is brief (briefer than that below). I'll analyze and consider on your comment. Are you happy? --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:39, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Gordon Watts and the Florida Supreme Court

[edit]

So Gordon... What do you do for a living? It appears that you spend quite a bit of time on this Schiavo stuff... I saw that you petitioned the Florida Supreme Court about something, but I don't know what it was.

Do you have some sort of a career beyond the Schiavo situation?

In the absence of the Terri Schiavo tragedy, what is a typical day like for you?

--AStanhope 02:53, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

AStanhope, I almost didn't see your comment, as I was indeed quite burnt out and needed time off, but I had to make a correction about an affiliation on the links page, that I realized was inaccurate, and saw I had messages, so I will make a brief reply: I help my father part-time with his business, but, I admit, not nearly sufficient to justify what he pays me; As a major participant in the Schiavo case, it was a full time job to try to go to court, work the media, keep my web pages (moderately) up to snuff (even if not 'daily' up to date), and go to the protest demonstrations, having slept in my car sometimes when a hotel was (financially) unavailable. "I saw that you petitioned the Florida Supreme Court about something, but I don't know what it was." Ah, the reason you didn't know the petition's subject was because the court didn't style the case properly. My case should have been In Re: Watts on behalf of Schiavo, or something like that, but the clerk got careless or something...

Links:

Compare the two cases, and you'll notice that the litigants in my case were many participants in the Schiavo case, the governor's case. So, it's obvious that I wasn't suing someone cuz their cat bit me or something. I was "going for gold," and almost made it. I wasn't kidding when I said I was burnt out, but I had to correct my that post, because the business affiliation was not longer present.

Actually, I am hoping to look for a job, but I have personal things that I need to do first, including "cleaning" and uncluttering my room, so I can have more working room and know where things are. Things just built up, actually, but regardless of the type of job I have, this type of board is too taxing to maintain on a full-steam basis: They don't pay me enough, you know.

"In the absence of the Terri Schiavo tragedy, what is a typical day like for you?" All the stuff in the paragraphs above and below this one, about messing with the media, like letters to the editor, news coverage, protests, cleaning my room, helping my father, checking email, looking for a job, and multitudes of hobbies, including WIKI... very busy, I assure you.

Since I know some have wondered if I was making this up and fraudulently trickstering y'all, For further reading, let me paste in a letter I sent "The 'Great' el-Rush-bo," after which time, I will have to continue my sabbatical, until I have recovered from burning the candle at both ends. (End 1=saving Terri; End 2= this Wiki board! end 3=checking email, cleaning my room, looking for a job, helping pop at his auto sales store off-and-on; 1+2+3=burnt out!) --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 23:37, 17 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Subject: Regarding my off-topic phone call...
  • Date: 5/17/2005 4:37:05 P.M. Eastern Standard Time
  • From: Gww1210@aol.com
  • To: Rush@eibnet.com
  • CC: Dittos@RushLimbaugh.com

Dear Rush,

I apologize if my off-topic call was an inconvenience to your call screener today. (Topic was Newsweek blunder; my call was re: Schiavo.) However, I can demand, er, "justify" said divergence. Here's how:

I was the most successful litigant on the losing side, because I scored almost 43% of my court panel's vote in my legal quest to "save Terri." I did better than Jeb Bush. See proof:

(Both Jeb Bush and I went before the Florida Supreme Court, he in case number SC04-925, and I in case SC03-2420; Bush was defeated 7-0, and defeated in rehearing AGAIN 7-0; I was denied by the clerk in my initial petition, and defeated 4-3 in my rehearing petition; Thus, I "did better than Jeb." ~~~ The closest the Florida Governor came to equaling my success was in a 4-3 defeat to modify or amend his filing, but when we both went in for rehearing, I did better, because I asked for enforcement of the current law, whilst he sought passage of new -and unnecessary, "Terri's" law.)

Links:

Related press release mirrors:

Selected Court docs from the Official court site:

PS: I tangled with the "powers that be" and was IN the courtroom when Gibbs said (hear it with my own ears) that he wanted to at least try to give Terri a little something to drink, even if the feeding tube was pulled!

(Judge WHITTEMORE said that it didn't matter whether the food came via feeding tube or mouth, if he were going to grant a stay; I think denying Terri some food, water, and visitation in her "prison" by the "good judge" angered JESUS, and my belief is based on my reading of Matthew 26:31-46 in the Holy Bible.)

Here are links to the my federal court involvement:

Here are links to the Matt. 25:31-46 Bible passage, for those without Bibles:

MY QUESTION TO RUSH: "Why in the heck did you give a free pass to the president and the governor for letting Terri die? If they send troops to Iraq, and if Janet Reno can send troops to "save Elian Gonzalez," then why can the 'brothers Bush' NOT send troops to save Terri Schiavo!?"

(In other words 1: "Why did you not take the Bush brothers to task?" ; and, 2: "Why give MORE news coverage to Bush, when, I, in fact, did better than did he?" --That is, pressure by the press -your show -might have pressured the court and picked me up one more vote, and I might have WON by a 4-3 margin.)

  • Gordon Wayne Watts http://GordonWatts.com
  • BS, The Florida State University, Biological and Chemical Sciences
  • AS, United Electronics Institute
  • ALWAYS FAITHFUL - To God
  • 821 Alicia Road, Lakeland, FLA, USA 33801-2113 http://HomeTown.AOL.com/Gww1210 or http://www.GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313
  • Home: (863) 688-9880 Work: (863) 686-3411 Voice&FAX: (863) 687-6141
  • Gww1210@aol.com ; Gww12102002@Yahoo.com
  • Truth is the strongest, most stable force in the Universe.
  • TRUTH doesn't bend to the will of tyrants.
  • Gordon Wayne Watts
  • Get Truth.

"First, they [Nazis] came for the Jews. I was silent. I was not a Jew. Then they came for the Communists. I was silent. I was not a Communist. Then they came for the trade unionists. I was silent. I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for me. There was no one left to speak for me." (Martin Niemoller, given credit for a quotation in The Harper Religious and Inspirational Quotation Companion, ed. Margaret Pepper (New York: Harper &Row, 1989), 429 -as cited on page 44, note 17, of Religious Cleansing in the American Republic, by Keith A. Fornier, Copyright 1993, by Liberty, Life, and Family Publications.

(Actually, they may not have come for the Jews first, as it's far more likely they came for the prisoners, mentally handicapped, and other so-called "inferiors" first -as historians tell us -so they could get "practiced up;" But, they did come for them -due to the silence of their neighbors -and due, in part, to their own silence. So the general idea is correct: "Speak up now, or forever hold your peace." --Gordon)

They wouldn't have needed to come for the prisoners (as they'd be stuck in prison), or the mentally handicapped (already in internment camps). So it would have been the Jews they came for first. Proto
  • *
  • *
Interesting comments, Pronto. I think I will consider them. Anyhow, while I have disagreed with some of you, I hope you all who might be offended are not angry or stressed. The major time it takes for me to monkey with WIKI is "the" major factor in my choice to not becoming more involved --in other words, I don't plan to check my WIKI page very often for messages. Should anyone wanna get in touch with me, my signatue appears above and has telephone, email, web page, and postal mailing address contact information. --GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 17:25, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Terri Schiavo

[edit]

Ok, I see the problem. I'm going to revert your changes. You're supposed to populate the category by making an article a member of the category, not by manually adding article links. You may want to review Wikipedia:Categorization for further instructions. --Viriditas | Talk 05:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Message received and reply left on your page. Thanks.--GordonWattsDotCom_In_Florida 06:19, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a difficult concept. What you have created is a "see also" list. If you wanted those articles to become members of the category, you would merely add the cat name, Category:Terri Schiavo to the bottom of the pages you have listed by adding the following text: [[Category:Terri Schiavo]]. However, I don't recommend doing that, as those pages don't belong in the category. If you feel that they do, leave me a brief note. --Viriditas | Talk 08:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm... I see one catagory, and it is in a larger catagory, that, in turn, has even more items, sort of like section (history), subsections (recent history or something), and sub-SUB-sections (like, maybe POLITICAL recent history) ... by the way, what does the "cm" abbreviation mean which you put in the edit summary? --GordonWattsDotCom_in_Florida, USA 08:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's correct. A partial listing of parent categories includes: ...People > People noted for being in rare medical or psychological categories > People with severe brain damage > Terri Schiavo. It's possible to add the Terri Schiavo category to another category, making it a member of that category, so that each category can potentially belong to multiple categories. --Viriditas | Talk 10:43, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Rule of thumb is to keep discussions short and to the point. As for responding on the users page, that merely allows them to see that they have new messages. Ultimately, it's up to the user if they respond on either page. I think most people do one or the other, depending on the discussion. There's no need to keep responding on both pages, so choose which one you prefer. "cm" is an edit summary abbreviation for "comment". The sig is totally up to you, but I prefer sigs that don't stand out. YMMV. --Viriditas | Talk 11:44, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Testing out new signature.--GordonWattsDotCom 07:15, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Aloha kakou, e komo mai

[edit]

"Aloha to all, welcome". --Viriditas | Talk 10:16, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:27, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:GordonWatts/Archive01&oldid=107553860"