Talk:Terri Schiavo case/Archive 48

Archive 45

Archive 46

Archive 47

Archive 48

Archive 49

Archive 50

→

Archive 52

Differing opinions about facts of the story

These different understandings partly explain the wide divergence in public attitude towards the outcome (live vs die)

her level of mental function

the level of care that she received

Darn, it really hard to create a tree of the issues, like a Mind_map

MartinGugino 21:31, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Also not commented on explicitly by the right-to-lifers is that the courts' job is to enforce the law. The law in Florida says, explicitly, that water may be withheld, doesn't it. So why rage against the courts?

You asked: '"The law in Florida says, explicitly, that water may be withheld, doesn't it. So why rage against the courts?"' I covered just that point in my brief, here in HTML format (or here in Microsoft Word format, doing actually better than big Jeb!. I recall that the state law was silent on the matter of water, but it spoke volumes regarding food; Federal Law, surprisingly, was more restrictive on what you had to do to avoid being hauled off to the pokey and visiting with the ball-and chain-gang.

Sources:

http://gordonwatts.com/TerriSupremeCourt.html

http://gordonwatts.com/TerriSupremeCourt.doc

http://members.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/TerriSupremeCourt.doc

http://members.aol.com/gww1210/myhomepage/TerriSupremeCourt.html

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2005/2/03-2420reh.pdf

http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/clerk/disposition/2004/10/04-925reh.pdf

http://www.gordonwatts.com

http://www.gordonwaynewatts.com

http://Members.AOL.com/Gww1210

http://GeoCities.com/Gordon_Watts32313

http://Gordon_Watts.Tripod.com/consumer.html

--GordonWatts 07:33, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon! Thanks for the references. I will look at them. MartinGugino 07:37, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

No problemo, Martin; It's not just everyday that a mere mortal such as myself can lay claim to having been the most sucessful litigant -even on the "so-called" losing side -in the most profound court case of the millenium. I have to "propogate the info" every chance I can get. (There is an element of me bragging to Bush's lawyers in there, about how they didn't quite do all they could have, but we ALL are mere mortals and I would have had a hard time filling the Guv's shoes I must admit.)--GordonWatts 07:43, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I think you are putting words in the mouths of the right-to-lifers. They did some protesting. While I disagree with them on this one, I think what they wanted was for Terri to remain alive. It is talked about in Public opinion and activism in the Terri Schiavo case. The autopsy might not have satisfied every last person about her mental function, but...do I really need to point out the obvious? The "level of care" or "standard of care" or whatever was not the subject of the corresponding medical review boards in Florida.--64.9.233.132 02:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I am not putting words "in" the mouths of right-to-lifers; I was commenting on their silence about the law. Is the law a bad law or a good law?

I am also having some trouble with the idea that giving water is not legal, but giving penicillin is mandatory. Was the difference that in the meantime the court accepted Michaels testimony that Terri would not want to live like she was now, which is pretty much the same as she was in 1993, unless she deteriorated since 1993.

Yes, I agree, they wanted Terri to remain alive.

Correct; the autopsy did not satisfy everyone on her mental function. I feel that this was because she was dead at the time of her autopsy.

I hadn't heard about Medical Review Boards. I will Google that. The "level of care" was a subject raised by the Schlindlers. For example, Michael instructed the staff at Sable Palms in 1993 to not give her antibiotics. This would have caused her to die. The Schindlers considered this to be not aggressive enough care. [1] MartinGugino

This might be Wikipedia, but it's still not the Wizard of Oz. There might be good witches and bad witches in that story, but there is little that Wikipedia can do about good and bad laws except to write articles about their effect. The parents raised a lot of objections. In their position, I might have also. The public raised a some objections. The religious people raised objections. There were lots of objections. But...well, you know what happened. So we are mostly arguing on this talk page about the balance between how much time we should be reporting "what happened" to our patient and years-long hurricanes of hot air that swirled around her.--64.9.238.65 15:38, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, that was a tangential musing about why there was no criticism of the Florida Legislature for making the laws that the courts were only enforcing. Then Gordon posted some info. Let me go back then, to my two questions.

• What do you think about the rewrite, the version, I posted above, for the lead paragraph? It is about half as long, and to me reads better. Are there points that are missing from it, etc?
• Wouldn't it be good to have a tentative list of the main points of contention between the two sides, that we need to be careful about, so as to maintain a NPOV?
• MartinGugino 22:03, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The reason I do not like your approach on the lead paragraph is that you start with an event. Most biographies start with a single sentence that attempts to define the subject's role in a static way. It is a matter of uniformity with the other biography articles (at least, the GA and FA ones). While there are many minor "one news event" bios, this is not one of them.

On your "main points" idea: I am receptive to the 1998-2003 arguments being summarized and the appeals simply being listed by date, but I expect problems. Neither the current format or a "main points" list is necessarily going to suppress bloat as the pro-life side of the argument tries to elaborate on each point.

Interjecting: No, I meant for us, the writers, to get an understanding of what the "main points" of disagreement were, so we can "watch" how we phrase things. But I will read what you said anyway, to see what you're saying. Martin | tk 05:37, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

By that I mean, if that each main point got elaborated on by ten different experts and pundits, they will want all that mentioned. How can we broach the issue without it just becoming another struggle for time/space for the pro-life to re-argue its points? The husband ceded control to the court (search for "surrogate decision-maker" in the Abstract Appeal link). In other words, this whole thing could have been wrapped up in 1998 and you still would have had the same outcome except that our patient would have had seven less years of bed time and seven less years of life.

The court made its determination and it then took five years of appeals and two more years of legislative interventions before the will of the court was carried out. The "main points" would just be a long list of additional experts, objections all of which failed to deter the court in carrying out its determination. I am receptive to the idea only because I think that the typical reader would also appreciate an organized list like that. I would say that what we are running up against is a disagree of values and what is Important. On the pro-lifer's side, each appeal happened and is documented, and, since each bought our patient more time (or, if you will, more life) then each is notable. On the historian's side, a long list of delaying actions are only important in toto and what matters is the final outcome.

Be aware that the only thing that imposes order on the current article is the timeline and the boundaries of the courtroom: we all agree on when the appeals occurred and each point or expert as they emerged in court (as opposed to what the experts might have said on TV afterwards). A "main points" approach could easily result in an article that is even BIGGER if every shred of evidence and every pundit's comment gets listed for each point. Note also that there are 21 PDF's of legal documents that suggest a complex matrix-like relationship with this or that "main point". I agree that a "main points" approach can be done, but we might be forced to enumerate that main point W was argued in appeals X, Y and Z, etc, or at least end up with footnotes that look like such. --199.33.32.40 20:24, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I am looking at point 4 of 70.231.147.149's comment in paragraph "Now, let's use the failed FA feedback", which I need to look at still. I think the goal should be to get the story out in one or possibly two pages. Put all the litigation details off to the side. I just assume that that history of the litigation, per se, is not going to be what is of primary interest in the future. The question is then, what is the story? What is the significance of the story? Why will anyone want to read about Terri Schiavo, and how can we help them find out what they want to know? Hmmm. I don't know the answer to that, but I think it is important to know that.

As far as the "main points" go, I meant that for us, so as to not "tilt" the story inadvertantly, to maintain a NPOV, on disagreements over issues that each side thinks is important. My tentative list, which I started, above, was:

• what was her level of mental function?

Really, I think, that was the quintessential point of disagreement. Secondarily, possibly, were

• Did she want / would she have wanted / to die?
• How much treatment did she get? This is the pretty much the same issue as "did Michael have a conflict of interest or have other interests?" I think. If he tried his best, that's all one can ask, unless he did a really really bad job of it.

Martin | tk 06:08, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Hereis an audio file that contains a conversation that shows the extreme shock and dismay that this case caused, and highlights exactly the "main points" that I noted just above.

• Martin | tk 03:59, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

I am simply acknowledging your edit here -and reassuring other editors that an editor can see the most recent edits by looking in the page history -even when you post in the middle of the page. I have met John Sipos (the fellow doing the interview here) at a rally; I live in the Tampa Bay area, specifically Lakeland.--GordonWatts 04:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

FA Feedback? (I cant find any feedback)

70.231.140.181 wrote, above, that there was some feedback on the FA (?) process. I assume that means that someone or a panel looked at the article for quality, and said it needs some work, and specified what they thought the areas needing work were, or the directions along which they thought the article needed to change.

I cant find that. I looked in the latest archive.

Martin | tk 07:59, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

This talk page now uses {{ArticleHistory}}. You have to click the "show" link in that template before you can see the link to the failed FAC feedback.--199.33.32.40 22:03, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Got it. Martin | tk 09:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Selected disputes involving Calton about which I would like to talk

THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!

I really hate to make points about people -instead of the article, but Calton is back making false accusations:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Calton&diff=105816228&oldid=105811737#Terri_Schiavo

I just wanted to bring this to the attention of public scrutiny to see if, in fact, there was anything more that I could have done.

In short, I reverted an editor who made massive changes without proper use of an edit summary and told her that I would not necessarily oppose her edits if she specified her reasoning in edit summaries (Wikipedia policy, by the way), and Calton then accused me of inserting a link -when in fact someone else (I think THIS editor) had inserted.

If this were an isolated incident, I would not bring it up, but Calton is very argumentive, and this is merely the latest. Just a heads up.--GordonWatts 16:22, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Post from banned editor Amorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed. Musical Linguist 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: Correct: He did not see who made what edit before making accusations, but we all make mistakes. I myself made reference to the wrong editor in my edit summary, but I apologised to Nutmeg when I saw my error, since, even as ElinorD says, edit summaries can't be changed if you make a typo. While Calton needed to be chastised, the purpose here is behaviour modification and attitude change, not revenge, so we hope that Calton learns; we SHOULD NOT hope that he becomes bitter.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

This edit summary is unhelpful, and his it's true that the material that Calton was removing had been there before Gordon arrived. I've looked back as far as 28 November 2006, ESkog, and it was presumably there before that. As far as I can tell, it was Zenger who originally added the North County Gazette link on 3 January,[2] although Gordon reverted the person who reverted Zenger.[3] It's my understanding that unkind or unjust comments can be crossed out or deleted, but an insulting edit summary remains in the history forever, even if you realise that the accusation you made in it was false. All the more reason not to use edit summaries for insulting an opponent. I don't take any position on the link, but I certainly can't see that Gordon did anything dishonest or sneaky. When I look at the history of the article, I see a disturbing pattern of Gordon's edits being reverted with popups (I thought they were meant to be used for reverting vandalism rather than for content disputes?) and errors being reverted with extremely aggressive edit summaries. And I am sure that Gordon's use of "Cal" was intended just as an abbreviation, whereas Calton's reply of "And the name is "Calton": only my friends get to call me "Cal", Gordy-boy"[4] seems deliberately intended to show contempt. I'm quite interested in this article, but I'm not sure that I want to get involved if the atmosphere is like this.

Gordon's reply: Your analysis is correct, and now that I've properly highlighted Calton's attitude, I need not repeat myself -or rub it in. He is not the only person who made a mistake, only the most recent.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just out of interest, if someone can tell me without shouting, what is the problem with the North Country Gazette? I've looked at WP:RS and would like to adhere to it, but I don't know anything about that website. It would be so much more helpful if someone could politely and coherently explain the objections. Also, the bit about Nurse Iyer is well known. I saw a television interview with her where she was making the same claims. Obviously we don't report those claims as if they're true. But I see no reason not to report that she made them. If the North Country Gazette isn't reliable, there must be some reliable source that reports that she made those claims. ElinorD 21:04, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Post from banned editor Amorrow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed. Musical Linguist 21:27, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: The NC Gazette is not as "reliable" as, say, the NY Times, but it is fairly reliable as a source of news, and it is no LESS reliable if it is the only one reporting on one small aspect: Occasionally ALL news media gets a scoop. However, since the standards are lower for commentary links (they need not be true, only opinions), The Gazette is more appropriate as a "opinion and commentary" link -unless absolutely necessary as a news source.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The "North Country Gazette" is a blog pretending to be a newspaper, hence in no way, shape or form a reliable source (and if they're the only source for this, that ought to tell you unsuitable it is here). Gordon Watts has attempted to insert links to "North Country Gazette" multiple times -- which he did again, no matter how he tries to spin it. I'm not the only one who's removed it, no matter how hard Gordon tries to poison the well with his "warning".

Gordon's reply: Cal has a point here: Neither I nor anyone else should not poison the well with further comments about his false accusations and insulting edit summaries; Once is enough unless the matter repeats.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

One little comment, I said above that I felt your use of "Cal" was just intended as an abbreviation. However, once he states that he doesn't want you to use it, wouldn't it be better to oblige? Otherwise it gives the impression either that you want to annoy him or that typing three extra letters in order not to annoy someone is too much trouble. This seems to be a page with a very hostile atmosphere, and I'm not sure to what extent I want to get involved, but it seems a bit silly to make it worse unnecessarily. I mean, if you think a link should go in, and someone else thinks it shouldn't, you might both feel strongly enough to keep fighting. But Cal versus Calton simply isn't worth it. ElinorD 12:44, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: You ask: "One little comment, I said above that I felt your use of "Cal" was just intended as an abbreviation. However, once he states that he doesn't want you to use it, wouldn't it be better to oblige?" My answer: If you haven't noticed, I have almost always replied to Calton addressing him by his full name -as he has suggested -which should be a sign and signal that I am not trying to provoke him; I made one exception here, not to insult him, but to demonstrate that nicknames are not bad: -If you read the context: Note, if you would, that I was agreeing with him; Therefore, it is logical to conclude that if I called him "Cal" this one time, and was agreeing with him ("Cal has a point here: Neither I nor anyone else should not poison the well with further comments about..."), then I an astute reader should understand I am not trying to provoke him, but I think I will take your advice to avoid ambiguity -see also the title change and comments below which further support my claims to peace.--GordonWatts 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the above post. The paragraph title "cal is back" is ... not good, unless it is a general welcome to a long lost poster. The title should control the thrust of the discussion under it, and this title seems to send the conversation off in the wrong direction. Would you two be open to deleting this whole paragraph, and recommence with the discussion on another foundation, or perhaps restate the disagreement as you both now more narrowly understand it? "Your" disagreement is a tiny fraction of the larger disagreement on the "Terri Schiavo" case, and you might present to us an example of how to begin to contain these conflicts.? Martin | talk • contribs 21:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: I have followed your implied suggestion -please note that the title is changed; Please note that my comment above notwithstanding, I have every other time addressed Calton by his full name proper -as he suggested, which should be a sign and a signal that I am not trying to provoke him; Indeed, I am not, and I grieve at the very thought that Calton gets stressed out over these minor matters such as an article's minor points.--GordonWatts 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

And before you buy his "warning" about how "Calton is back!", I'd advice you to check his track record as a tireless -- and tiresome -- axe-grinder on this topic by going back through the multiple archived talk pages. Pick some at random and skim them -- or if you want a concentrated dose of the full Gordon Watts Experience, try this to see all the wikilawyering; handwaving; tiresome argumentation; contempt for rules, norms, and guidelines; and general detachment from reality that constitute GordonWatts' contributions to Wikipedia, all in one place. The real warning should be, "Oh God, Gordon Watts is back." --Calton | Talk 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: So what if I disagreed with an admin vote. That is my right. We still have free speech, don't we? I never insulted, falsely accused, threatened, etc. Eh? That should count for something -if your eyes see fairly.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Fine. I've no problem in accepting that the "North Country Gazette" isn't suitable. I had never heard of it anyway. I don't know if they're the only source for it, and apparently neither do you. Gordon, perhaps you could find a reliable source with the same information. And if you do, please bring it here first rather than inserting it straight into the article, just to avoid more nastiness.

Gordon's reply: Good point; I initially DID insert it a while back, but after a few reversions and comments, I supported the concensus to keep it out; however, I still do offer my vote of support for it, now or later, if it is ever put to a vote, OK? Not a perfect paper, but stronger than my newspapers on the web. I'm only part-time.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked through the archives, and they're pretty horrifying - full of foul, aggressive, toxic, venemous outbursts. I haven't seen anything remotely like it anywhere else on Wikipedia. And I'm not referring to Gordon's posts (or yours for that matter). Surely you're not going to argue that if someone gets on your nerves badly then it's okay to abuse him in edit summaries, like this one. People make mistakes. I made mistakes when I joined Wikipedia, and I'll probably make more. You left a message for Gordon a few hours ago on his user page and not his talk page, but nobody reverted you with an edit summary saying "Calton, if you don't understand the difference between user and talk pages, DON'T SCREW AROUND WITH THEM." And the accusation of lying seems extremly unfair. Gordon seems to have simply reverted some massive changes back to an earlier version, which happened to include a link that he was in favour of. Unless he said he was reverting to Nut-meg and then reverted to him/her while also inserting a link he wanted, which hadn't been in Nut-meg's version, I don't see anything sneaky about it. Isn't there some policy called WP:AGF? Terri Schiavo is a very controversial subject, so there are bound to be strong feelings. All the more reason to make an effort to remain patient, so that it doesn't become difficult for people with opposing views to work together.

Gordon's reply: Actually, I reverted Supermom401's edit (not Nutmeg's); I made a typo here, and apologise to all parties for such. Also, yes, because editors aren't required to give their real name and be vetted and screened properly, we get lots of "Keyboard Rambo's" who do "Edit Kung Fu" and hide behind screen names -which contributes much to the poor discipline and "toxic nature" of the editors in this Wiki.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I don't agree that someone should be reverted for not using edit summaries, or that mass reversion can be seen as vandalism. When I joined Wikipedia, my first few edits didn't have summaries, and someone sent me a very helpful message telling me how to use them. ElinorD 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: You're not necessarily wrong, ElinorD, but if a person makes MANY changes in one edit, and he or she puts in no edit summary, then a reversion is appropriate -especially of some of the changes were bad -and Supermom401's edits were not all good. That's why I reverted to the prior version. She acted hastily without concensus. Heck, even I get reverted for making little changes here & there without getting concensus, so reverting her massive and somewhat questionable edit was not out of line -when no concensus and no edit summary were present.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If the North Country Gazette isn't reliable, there must be some reliable source that reports that she made those claims. That's not a reason, that's wishful thinking: there MUST be some reliable source, why, exactly?

Gordon's reply: Calton can't show why it is not reliable. MANY blogs are used as sources, so don't let him scare you. I'm not saying he's wrong simply because it's a blog -or because he has been rude of late, but you need to keep an open mind and ask for proof when someone like him says it's unreliable; He may be incorrect!--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Find a reliable source with context (the "affidavit" label was very misleading, as I recall) and it goes back in. Not before then. --Calton | Talk 00:04, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

You ask why I think there must be some reliable source. Well, because I saw and heard Nurse Iyer speaking on television in 2005, saying basically the same thing that she said in the extract that you took out. So, assuming that I wasn't hallucinating, there really is a person called Carla Iyer, and she really did make those claims. (I've also seen copies of Judge Greer's dismissal of her claims, but nowhere have I seen it suggested that she didn't make those claims.) So, since the Terri Schiavo case attracted a lot of media attention, and since Carla Iyer exists, and since she did make claims about Michael saying "When is that bitch going to die?", etc., and since she did speculate about insulin, then I submit that there must be a reputable source somewhere that reports that she claimed that. I get the impression that you don't believe Nurse Iyer's claims. Well, I don't believe Nadine Milroy-Sloan's claims, but I don't doubt that she made them, and since the people she accused were very notable, I don't doubt at all that I'd find a reliable source to report that she made those claims if I wanted to work on that article. (Maybe I will; the Terri Schiavo atmosphere isn't very inviting.) ElinorD 01:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: I've met Carla; She really exists! She live in my old hometown of Plant City, a few miles from Lakeland where i currently reside.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know if they're the only source for it, and apparently neither do you.

I was responding to the anon commenter directly above my comments. To refresh your memory: "but NCG is the only source bothering with such aftermath.".

So, assuming that I wasn't hallucinating, there really is a person called Carla Iyer, and she really did make those claims.

Easy enough to prove from an actual reliable source, ennit? Go forth and find it if you feel it's important.

I get the impression that you don't believe Nurse Iyer's claims.

I don't believe anything coming from Gordon's favorite blog, no.

Gordon's reply: MY favorite "blog" is my newspaper, The Register, but The Gazette often covers things in a more timely manner than I can.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Surely you're not going to argue that if someone gets on your nerves badly then it's okay to abuse him in edit summaries

That's not abuse, that's a warning: Gordon has a long track record of understanding little on Wikipedia -- from basics of wiki syntax to its basic pillars -- while simultaneously proclaiming that he understands it better than anyone else, and breezily passing over the frequent corrections and lessons he gets from a multitude of editors and admins. It's not that he's ignorant, it's he's aggressively ignorant, the single-purpose Ed Wood, Jr of Wikipedia. Again, this should provide a clue.

And if you're going to gas on about my "abuse", perhaps you should note Gordon's alleged warning, his po-faced claim about me being argumentative, and his denials about his slipping in his favorite link again -- again, another one of MULTIPLE attempts to do so.

Isn't there some policy called WP:AGF

No, there's some policy called "Assume Good Faith in the absence of evidence to the contrary". There being a freight trains's worth of evidence to the contrary -- Gordon's staggeringly unsuccessful attempt to become an admin providing at least one full carload -- that's not even close to being applicable here. --Calton | Talk 02:30, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: I was insistent and hard-headed, in my admin request, but I was academic AND POLITE, something you are not. You are not either, Mr. Calton. Chill out and make your case with logic and honour -IF you have a case.--GordonWatts 03:29, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I've looked at it, Calton, and I looked at the archives, as you suggested, and I can say that nothing in the requests for adminship page shocked me like the abuse hurled at him and others of seemingly similar beliefs that I found in the archives. Anyway, that's not really relevant to how we can improve the article, and I still think that we can improve it better if we try not to insult other editors. Gordon, can you find a source that other editors will consider reputable to report that Carla Iyer made those claims? ElinorD 12:56, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Gordon's reply: Correct regarding the archives; I fight hard, but I try not to insult or offend. Regarding the link, I may, if possible, find other links, but the fact that a link is the only one that documents a claim is not, in and of itself, reason to toss it. In the "best case" scenario, if a link's claim is correct, then BOTH or ALL links should be added. In diversity, we find our strength. If I don't find another link (which may be the case, as I'm spread thin currently), feel free to, ElinorD, or any other editor.--GordonWatts 10:32, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

More current dispute involving User:Calton

THIS: Wikipedia consensus process flowchart might be of help here!

Please see this diff of the Government_involvement_in_the_Terri_Schiavo_case page for details. Input sought - as I have a clear conflict of interest.

The links in question have been on the page for ages -without conflict -until I just recently started posting; Either the links are bad - or Calton is trying to provoke another editor -or both.--GordonWatts 08:16, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

No, the links are gone because I found them while looking for spam: look whose name floats nearly to the very top when doing a link search for geocities.com. And Gordon, there's no statute of limitations for bad material, bad external links, and conflicts of interest (it's YOUR site, so doubly bad). If your actions can't stand up to scrutiny to the point you have to resort to ad hominem fallacy arguments to distract people from them, you ought not to do them. to begin with. --Calton | Talk 16:57, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

I am sure that you are aware that Gordon does have a special standing in this case, one that does not apply to you or to me: He was a petitioner in a case that was commented on by the Supreme Court, and so, as to that petition, he is an original source of information. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MartinGugino (talk • contribs) 07:42, 11 February 2007 (UTC).

That is correct, but I will not comment much on this here - other than to say that the world's wisest man had something to say about Martin's comment. Observe: "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth; a stranger, and not thine own lips." Proverbs 27:2 (King James Version) To understand this in context, it means that Martin or another person offering positive feedback or confirming praise about me carries more weight than anything I might say -even when I speak the correct truth. That is because he can be objective, while I can merely be subjective and correct.--GordonWatts 19:14, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Here: WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #11, WP:EL#Advertising_and_conflicts_of_interest, & Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Using_online_and_self-published_sources - don't make up nonsense, Gordon. So Gordon's "special standing" notwithstanding, not even a borderline case. Of course, that "special standing" claim is utter nonsense to begin with, as laid out here. --Calton | Talk 00:18, 12 February 2007 (UTC)