Mia-Cle

Welcome!

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:

• How to edit a page
• Editing, policy, conduct, and structure tutorial
• Picture tutorial
• How to write a great article
• Naming conventions
• Manual of Style
• If you're ready for the complete list of Wikipedia documentation, there's also Wikipedia:Topical index.

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! By the way, you can sign your name on Talk and vote pages using three tildes, like this: ~~~. Four tildes (~~~~) produces your name and the current date. 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! --JYolkowski 19:36, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you

For your rational and intelligent contributions to the Terri Schiavo article. You've managed to avoid the knee jerk reactionism, fantastic canards, and hyper-sensitive ranting that's got the best of just about every last other editor there (disclosure: myself included) while making delligent and regular contributions to the article itself. Congrats on finally getting a user name (by God that IP was getting annoying), as this place needs more editors like you. Professor Ninja 02:05, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Thank you -- Y'all are going to make me blush. I hope I am being helpful and wish I had more time than the occasional coffee break (but, I will continue to look at the article and make suggestions in re incorporating the legal stuff). And it was a knee-jerk reaction that got me involved in the discussion page to begin with (I saw the words "without reading the law" followed by an opinion on the law that the writer hadn't bothered to look up and decided it was time to get involved. I rant, just on a different tack.) If you're really that appreciative though, some Tim Horton's old fashioned sour cream glazed doughnuts would really make my coffee break ever so much better...--Mia-Cle 16:08, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Oh, the joys of living in this country. There are literally five Tim Hortons within walking distance of me. I am never lacking for caffeine (I think they put something in it, though Snopes assures me this isn't true). I suppose this just goes to show that, like a hammer, a knee jerk can be used to build a house or bash a skull. Though I'm curious, how are you familiar with our little coffee chain? Has it really made it so far south? (I would still like, on behalf of my Dominion, those colonies back, please. We have nowhere warm to go.) I know they are the most awesome awesome that's ever awesomed, and they've made some inroads in the States, but it seems they are fast conquering Starbucks. For shame, Tim. For shame. Professor Ninja 19:20, Apr 19, 2005 (UTC)

Five! Alas and a lack--there are no Tim's down this far south to my knowledge ('wish there were--franchise opportunity!--there's only Starbucks/Krispy Kreme/Dunkin Donuts (ugh, spelling) *Not* the same.) I grew up on the U.S. side of Lake Erie and had many a sojourn in the land of the maple leaf--having tasted a Tim's doughnut & coffee, no other doughnut & coffee combo will do...(I think y'all are taking ye olde colony back--there are certainly enough Canadian license plates on both gulf and atlantic coasts during the winter. (They drive ever so carefully, like the midwesterners; quite atypical.)) Besides, is it shame on Tim or shame on Dave (or is it no longer Tim/Dave (of Wendy's fame))? P.S. Are you tweaking that pargraph? That way I'll ponder what I wish to tackle next.--Mia-Cle 20:23, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Upon further reflection, I think we went through all that work for nothing. I have absolutely no idea what, if anything, the issue of dispute was. I think that some POV-pushers were just trying to stir the pot. Right now I have this in there, which is going to be my edit...

An emergency motion to restore the feeding tube was filed by Barbara Weller, the Schindlers' co-attorney who stated that 20 minutes before the tube was removed on March 18, 2005, and in response to their attempts to coach her, "she managed to articulate the first two vowel sounds, first articulating AHHHHHHH and then virtually screaming WAAAAAAAA." Schiavo had been unable to speak since her heart attack in 1990. Weller asserted that she had told Terri that she would die unless she said, "I want to live." The alleged incident occurred only in the presence of family members and has not been independently confirmed. The police officer stationed outside the room said she could not recall hearing the vocalization. Judge George Greer said that Schiavo's utterances came only after being touched, which was consistent with evidence presented in 2002. "All of the credible medical evidence this court has received over the last five years is that this is not a cognitive response, but rather something akin to a person jerking his/her hand off a hot stove long before he/she has thought about it," Greer wrote. [1]

Which is just the God's honest truth, no more, no less. I feel dirty after all that work, cheap and used like a powder-blue tuxedo on a luckless virgin's prom night. I really wish these POV people would stop pushing nonsense, like "if we can't say it happened, by golly, then it surely did!" So, sorry for taking you through that whole jumping through hoops. I think that my plan may have been just to humour them or something, or take their grievances seriously in all fairness... this was the original complaint: "POV with respect to "alleged incident". Remove "alleged" as the incident was audio-taped. What's disputed is whether Terri's vocalizations were consistent or inconsistent with a finding of PVS, with the court finding these vocalizations were consistent with PVS." -- it turns out the audiotape never existed. My problem was that it's presented as fact that it happens, which it could be, or could not be. I don't know and don't want us to pass judgment either way. I think at some point we became sidetracked by shenanigans and nitpickery and ended up revising something that, in the end, did not need revising at all. Wjbean said this before re: all the disputes, "Around and around and around we spin with feet of lead and wings of tin." Which is a damn apposite observation, if one were to ask me. We've become so spun up that we're revising revisions of rejected revisions that don't exist. Cripers on a stick.

And by the way, I think you're invading us back, you know. I see these senior drug trips come up here. All the time. "Oh, let's go get price-capped medicine!" they say, and then they come. So it's like an old folks swap. Ours can't take the cold, yours can't the monopolistic control of pharmaceuticals. Socialism, it seems, has its advantages (what's with very large, sparsely populated, frigid northern countries and collectivism, anyway?) Professor Ninja 05:04, Apr 20, 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm, and I have this (okay, so there's only so many indents i'm willing to take), which was the compromised compromised compromise that shouldn't rile anyone or, conversely, should reasonably please both sides (and it makes me happy b/c the affidavit isn't occuring in a vacuum). With links to the motion/affidavits and order in question.

Terri Schiavo's cognitive abilities continued to be a disputed issue until the very end. After the feeding tube was removed in 2005, the Schindlers filed a series of motions, including an emergency motion for relief from judgment based upon the incapacitated's articulation of end-of-life wishes. Affidavits were provided by the Schindlers to substantiate their assertion that Mrs. Schiavo had cognitive interaction with others and that it was possible, with time, for Mrs. Schiavo's communication skills to improve. One affidavit was from Barbara Weller, attorney for the Schindlers. In it, Weller claimed that immediately prior to the removal of the feeding tube and while she was with Mrs. Schiavo, Weller took both of Mrs. Schiavo's arms and begged Mrs. Schiavo very hard to say that she wanted to live. Weller assserted that Mrs. Schiavo's response was to articulate "Ahhhhhhh" and to scream "Waaaaaaa." Weller viewed this as Mrs. Schiavo's attempt to say, "I want to live." The judge reviewed all the evidence presented by the Schindlers and found that this alleged vocalization and the proposed new therapy were not new and were insufficient to challenge the prior judgment.

Just wait until we have to use passports to cross the border...needing a passport to get to and from the Shaw Festival or gambling in Windsor, now there's a lovely traffic jam (or tailback, if you prefer your Britishisms) that I never want to get stuck in. The cold makes one more sensible? Hard to be revolutionary in a parka and boots?--Mia-Cle 14:14, 20 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Let's try a few tweaks to that one; how's about something along the lines of...

Terri Schiavo's cognitive abilities continued to be disputed by the Schindlers until her death. [ed.: let's face it, they're still disputed.] After the feeding tube was removed in March, 2005, the Schindlers filed a series of motions, including an emergency motion for relief from judgment based upon the incapacitated's articulation of end-of-life wishes. Affidavits were provided by the Schindlers to substantiate their assertion that Mrs. Schiavo had cognitive interaction with others and that it was possible, with time, for Mrs. Schiavo's communication skills to improve. Two affidavits were provided by Barbara Weller, Schindler co-attorney and Suzanne Vitadamo [ed.: spelling?], Terri's [relative]. In these affidavits, Weller and Vitadamo asserted that immediately prior to the removal of the feeding tube and while she was with Mrs. Schiavo, Weller took both of Mrs. Schiavo's arms and begged Mrs. Schiavo very hard to say that she wanted to live. Weller and Vitadamo claim that Mrs. Schiavo's response was to articulate "Ahhhhhhh" and to scream "Waaaaaaa." They viewed this as Mrs. Schiavo's attempt to say, "I want to live." It should be noted that this incident occured only in the presence of Weller and Vitadamo, and has not been independently affirmed. For example, the affidavits assert that the vocalization was loud enough to alert the police officer posted outside the room; however the officer later stated she had no recollection of the event. The judge reviewed all the evidence presented by the Schindlers and found that this alleged vocalization and the proposed new therapy were insufficient to challenge the prior judgment.

How's that for you? I think it devacuumifies the entire thing rather nicely. (Perhaps an addition of a sentence concerning the new therapy?)

Perhaps you have a point about the cold; it does at least make one more pragmatic. Hunting mammoths and all (it gets bloody cold in Ottawa, it's situated in nature's wind tunnel, the valley.)

Works for me. It has my vote. Bloody well done. Nicely de-Hoovered. Etc. (It's too bad the ency. doesn't use real footnotes, as the bit about no independent confirmation would make an ideal footnote, oh well.) I was trying to avoid the new therapy (alhtough it sounds like a great invention) b/c you then have to address how she lacked the cognitive function that would allow the whatever it was to work. I'll check the affidavit/order later and think about a sentence. But for right now, I like the paragraph. Joy.

It's hard to want to be a revolutionary when the sun is sparkling off the bay/ocean (the who cares, let's go sailing, swimming, walking on the beach, eat, drink, be merry, do something egregiously healthy attitude kicks in; if you haven't noticed, most of the protestors down here tend to be from out-of-state, unless it's about Cuba.) Remember, that when you're enjoying summer, it's 90-something degrees farenheit with 90 percent humidity here (and Ottawa is lovely in summer, I've been there a couple times).

nuclear option

mia-cle, question for you. I've been working on the nuclear option article and it keeps using the term 'supermajority' to describe the 60 out of 100 vote required to confirm an appointee through the Senate. Is 'supermajority' a legal term? or is it something that a wikipedian made up? it occurred to me that 'supermajority' is a bit of a POV that frames the 60 vote threshhold as too high to attain, superhuman strength, superman, etc, etc. Anyway, I was wondering if there was a legal term for the 60 vote minimum for the Senate. I'll be gone for much of the weekend, but will try and check in if I can. Thanks. FuelWagon 03:18, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

i'll check with some poli sci prof friends for an accurate answer, but my quick two cents is that it's not a legal term. the constitution refers to a two-thirds majority. i'm guessing it was brought into the vernacular to distinguish the two-thirds majority from the simple majority. i don't take it as being POV b/c it indicates that it requires more than a majority. besides, the two-thirds majority is supposed to be a higher hurdle. So, being a research geek at heart, i found this for you on the supermajority needed for impeachment. it's from the brief for President Clinton for the senate trial (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/clinton/clintonbrief.html).

Indeed, the two-thirds supermajority requirement is a crucial constitutional safeguard. Supermajority provisions are constitutional exceptions to the presumption that decisions by legislative bodies shall be made by majority rule. These exceptions serve exceptional ends. The two-thirds concurrence rule serves the indispensable purpose of protecting the people who chose the President by election. By giving a "veto" to a minority of Senators, the Framers sought to ensure the rights of an electoral majority -- and to safeguard the people in their choice of Executive. Only the Senate and only the requirement of a two-thirds concurrence could provide that assurance.

Anyway, i'll let you know what the profs say. have a great weekend. --Mia-Cle 20:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Hello MIA-CLE (I'm a retired air traffic controller, and it makes my teeth hurt to see the mixed case). It's not just Congress. If memory serves, Roberts Rules of Order also refers to super-majority (if not in name, certainly in process), and as I recall, there are generally only two types of plurality—simple majority and two-thirds majority. Of course Congress has their own rules of order which in some cases differ widely from Roberts. Oh, by the way, I'm originally from Jamestown, NY, just up the road from CLE about 100 miles or so, and I grew up in Hollywood, FL, just up the road from MIA by 20 or 30 miles, depending on where you measure from. I now live in Ormond Beach. Duckecho 02:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

hullo: yup, i agree re super-majority. And, i know the area (Jamestown NY) -- used to go to Chatauqua, Peak n' Peak/Cockaigne. Lovely area. 'Been around Hollywood (FL) a few times too (although, down here I've stopped measuring distances in miles, but in time (how long will it take in peak rush hour vs. normal traffic vs. any other time traffic...)). I've never actually spent any time around Daytona -- I'd like to explore more of Florida, but I don't seem to have the time right now.

here's what someone who teaches at Ohio State said on the subject: "I think it's a "supermajority" simply because it's more than a simple majority which is required. As to why it's 60... or 67 in some cases -- it's a question of what we're considering, right? If you're talking about a majority needed to override a veto -- or make a bill "veto-proof" then it's one thing but if we're talking about in-house (or senate as the case may be) rules about how to end a filibuster -- that's a decision that was made by the Senate for itself. There's no "law" -- it's operating rules for the chamber -- and they can change it anytime they want. But anything that isn't a "simple majority" would be a "super majority" -- that's my understanding."--Mia-Cle 23:39, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

The great court case

I did the docket search for the great "I did better than the governor" court case that GW keeps baying about and read it over. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but did I read it right? I see a filing in which the petitioner failed to file in the proper form at least twice, missed at least two deadlines, and the court never got around to finding on the merits of the filing but spent its time on the faulty procedure. Am I right? His big 4-3 loss wasn't even on the issues?

What is he so proud of? If I'm reading that right, I'm going to have some fun with him.

By the way, if you ever do come up to the DAB area, let me know—we'll have a cup. email me at: duckecho@gmail.com Duckecho 03:57, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

that's the way I read it--never made it to the merits of the case b/c of procedural difficulties. however, this is only reading the docket, so one cannot know what the court said in its entirety. being a lawyer, I thought it might come off as snobbish and establishment-oriented if I pointed out these problems. did you look up just the case name or do a name (party) search? you can also search the florida district courts of appeal online dockets too (this is just useful in general). online sunshine, it's a wonderful thing for the public. you gotta love fla. and yes, 'will give a call if i ever trek out of my bit o' paradise :-) --Mia-Cle 16:19, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

Mediation

Unfortunately, no. It may need someone (care to volunteer) other than me to jump on and post their support there. Failing that, I'm thinking we're going to need to move to arbitration. Duckecho's trying but.... On a lighter note, Gordon's been behaving himself on the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case page, and we're working to bring it up to snuff. I'd like to see it at the level that it's an asset to a 1st or 2nd yr law student. Care to jump in?--ghost 21:04, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

"Always nice to know who is suing whom for what." LOL, yeah. I have fond memories of going to the baseball field as a kid and hearing the vendors hawk, "..can't tell your players from your umps without a program..." I feel we all need a program. *sigh* --ghost 12:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Got your note. Answered.

Got your note. Answered on my talk page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:GordonWattsDotCom#Traffic_Court and also saved at these diffs: [2] and [3].--GordonWattsDotCom 11:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Mediator's Announcement

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

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:16, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

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

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

• Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:50, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

Image Tagging for Image:Brickellkey.jpg

Thanks for uploading Image:Brickellkey.jpg. The image has been identified as not specifying the source and creator of the image, which is required by Wikipedia's policy on images. If you don't indicate the source and creator of the image on the image's description page, it may be deleted some time in the next seven days.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

• Wikipedia:Image use policy
• Wikipedia:Image copyright tags

This is an automated notice by OrphanBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see User talk:Carnildo/images. 10:34, 9 March 2006 (UTC)