Joe Sensor wrote:
playon wrote:


Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself

enough of the whining about a self destructive twit
you want to cry over dead cry over the innocent women and children we
are slaughtering in IRAQ
George

playon wrote in message
...
On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 06:03:17 GMT, "Troy"
wrote:


Liam Slider wrote in message
news
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 19:42:42 -0800, Cut Across Shorty wrote:

flatfish+++ wrote:
There is a lot of evidence that may implicate Terri's husband, may
involve


So he poisoned her, then used rehab to get a malpractice settlement.

Of which there is no evidence.


Then remarried and now wants to kill her.

Except she's dead already.


You must be also.....I see no signs of inteligent life from you either.

She breaths on her own....she is not on a resperator .......Her body does
the same things yours does in a day......except she is probably smarter
than
you and she needs help eating.

Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.

Al

GET A CLUE........its got nothing to do with recovery its got to do with
starving a living breathing creature to death for perposes of termination
because she lives differently than you and I.She may be in her own world but
its hers and no one has the right to take this away from her.

Should babies born with brain damage be starved to death also???.


Its not like pulling the plug on a machine to let her die......she is dying
a horrible death.

Joe Sensor wrote in message
...
playon wrote:


Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.


How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.All the stuff on the news is old
footage.She breaths on her own so yes she is alive.

PS if you got something to say to me post it don't email me again **** for
brains.......I don't need to hide behind fake name and email like you.

George Gleason wrote in message
...
Joe Sensor wrote:
playon wrote:


Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself


Care to explain the above line?????.




enough of the whining about a self destructive twit
you want to cry over dead cry over the innocent women and children we
are slaughtering in IRAQ
George


Don't worry George the rest of the world cries for all the innocent women
and kids murdered in Iraq.Americans need to get over themselves as they are
losing all their "friends".Who will be there for them next time a building
falls down.Think about it.

Troy wrote:
George Gleason wrote in message
...

Joe Sensor wrote:

playon wrote:



Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself



Care to explain the above line?????.



She went into the coma as a result of a heart attack that resulted
from her anorexia
G

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself




Care to explain the above line?????.



She went into the coma as a result of a heart attack that resulted from
her anorexia
G

If I pumped myself full of heroin, had a heart attack, by brain
liquefied would you keep me alive ?
I'd hope not
this ISN'T life support
its artificial life
G

George Gleason wrote in message
...


She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself




Care to explain the above line?????.



She went into the coma as a result of a heart attack that resulted from
her anorexia
G

If I pumped myself full of heroin, had a heart attack, by brain
liquefied would you keep me alive ?
I'd hope not
this ISN'T life support
its artificial life
G



Gerorge she had a sickness.....should we condemn everyone that is sick and
tell its their own fault for being sick???

George Gleason wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:
George Gleason wrote in message
...

Joe Sensor wrote:

playon wrote:



Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself



Care to explain the above line?????.



She went into the coma as a result of a heart attack that resulted
from her anorexia
G


She didn't "do it to herself" her sickness did it to her.The mind is an
amazing thing and can play tricks on you.I sure hope you never suffer from a
mental illness.

Troy wrote:
George Gleason wrote in message
...

Troy wrote:

George Gleason wrote in message
...


Joe Sensor wrote:


playon wrote:




Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself



Care to explain the above line?????.




She went into the coma as a result of a heart attack that resulted
from her anorexia
G



She didn't "do it to herself" her sickness did it to her.The mind is an
amazing thing and can play tricks on you.I sure hope you never suffer from a
mental illness.




sorry I started into this with the facts
I hate clouding up someones heartfelt position
I need to exit this now as I see it is crossposted
and have no interest in joining your group or mucking up mine

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:04:37 +0000, Troy wrote:

GET A CLUE........its got nothing to do with recovery its got to do with
starving a living breathing creature to death for perposes of termination
because she lives differently than you and I.She may be in her own world but
its hers and no one has the right to take this away from her.

She is not "in her own world." The Cerebral Cortex is what you use
to...well...be you, it's the part that thinks, it is where your
conciousness happens....she doesn't have one. She would *need* one for her
to even *be* "in her own world." Nitwit.

Liam Slider wrote in message
news
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:04:37 +0000, Troy wrote:

GET A CLUE........its got nothing to do with recovery its got to do with
starving a living breathing creature to death for perposes of
termination
because she lives differently than you and I.She may be in her own world
but
its hers and no one has the right to take this away from her.

She is not "in her own world." The Cerebral Cortex is what you use
to...well...be you, it's the part that thinks, it is where your
conciousness happens....she doesn't have one. She would *need* one for her
to even *be* "in her own world." Nitwit.


How do you know this???.......have you even been brain
damaged???.......Maybe you can explain what death is like also since you are
all knowing oh great one.

You are not in her shoes so you don't know what is going on in her head,no
one does.Nitwit or should I call you a Netwit

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 18:54:52 -0600, Joe Sensor
wrote:

playon wrote:


Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

I think her parents want to keep her alive for themselves, it's not
for Terri's sake... they want to be able to go see her, etc. It's
understandable I suppose, but I hope that never happens to me.

Al

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:16:26 GMT, "Troy"
wrote:


George Gleason wrote in message
...
Joe Sensor wrote:
playon wrote:


Get a clue. The woman's cerebral cortex has been liquified, there is
nothing in that part of her brain anymore but spinal fluid. You can't
recover from this, period.


As she gets closer and closer to death, well not really death, but
rather what remains of her, expiring, notice she has the same contented
look on her face. Nothing is changing because she really isn't alive
anyway.

And this will be a huge burden lifted off the rest of her family. Too
bad they can't see the reality. All will be better off.

She was trying to starve herself when she did this on herself


Care to explain the above line?????.

She was a bulimic/anorexic, she suffered the brain damage when she was
starving herself and had momentary heart failure. Ever read the
papers?

Al





enough of the whining about a self destructive twit
you want to cry over dead cry over the innocent women and children we
are slaughtering in IRAQ
George


Don't worry George the rest of the world cries for all the innocent women
and kids murdered in Iraq.Americans need to get over themselves as they are
losing all their "friends".Who will be there for them next time a building
falls down.Think about it.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:04:37 GMT, "Troy"
wrote:

its got nothing to do with recovery

Yes, it does. I certainly hope to hell someone pulls the plug on me
if I was in that situation.

Al

Troy wrote:

How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.

You suppose new footage would be suppressed if it showed more signs of
life?

"morron"? What the hell is that?



PS if you got something to say to me post it don't email me again **** for
brains.......I don't need to hide behind fake name and email like you.

Yeah, I used to do that too. But right wing "pro life" fanatics such as
yourself have proven that you risk death just for giving an opinion. Pro
life indeed.

"**** for brains". Really classy - (..)

I'm out.

"Troy" wrote in message
news:rW12e.833602$6l.357925@pd7tw2no...

How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.

Sounds like she needs a new agent ...

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:53:57 +0000, Troy wrote:

How do you know this???

The brain has been studied, in general what parts do what is well known.
The important parts of Terri's brain are simply missing. Not damaged,
gone. There's no *person* there any more. Fact.

Liam Slider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:53:57 +0000, Troy wrote:

How do you know this???

The brain has been studied, in general what parts do what is well known.
The important parts of Terri's brain are simply missing. Not damaged,
gone. There's no *person* there any more. Fact.

If I might be able to tie Terri Schiavo to IMAX theaters in the South
for a moment, let me make one quick point:

The Catholic Church basically officially endorses evolution (that's
the IMAX tie-in), but it is quite clear that this does not mean it's
acceptable to believe that the "soul" or consciousness originates
through the physical phenomenon of the brain.

So, if I understand it correctly, the Catholic Church disputes (and
by extension, in theory, all good Catholics should dispute) that the
brain is what makes you a person or a soul.

Add to that all the philosophy classes where the subject of discourse
is something like "what is the relationship between the mind and
the brain?" (and where people genuinely disagree), and I think it
should be considered debatable that activity in the brain is the
source and reason for existence of the mind and its consciousness.

So, of course, that makes this whole thing even more complicated,
but do try to realize that some people really do believe that
consciousness may not be an effect of the brain (although most
people would probably agree that it is closely correlated with
the brain somehow). I have heard some very good arguments (most
notably one called "The Brain Prosthesis Experiment" in the back
of an Artificial Intelligence textbook) that the mind is an effect
of the brain, and while I cannot logically refute that argument,
on an intuitive level I remain pretty much totally convinced that
if I could build a working model of a brain, it would just be
a machine with no subjective sensation of consciousness like I
(as a human) have. Or at least I cannot understand how putting
together chemical reactions (and/or electrical signals) could
create the same subjective sensation I experience.

- Logan

On Mon, 28 Mar 2005 20:21:06 -0800, "ynotssor"
wrote:


"Troy" wrote in message
news:rW12e.833602$6l.357925@pd7tw2no...

How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.

Sounds like she needs a new agent ...

maybe give Michael Jackson's people a call...

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:40:35 GMT, Logan Shaw
wrote:

Liam Slider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 02:53:57 +0000, Troy wrote:

How do you know this???

The brain has been studied, in general what parts do what is well known.
The important parts of Terri's brain are simply missing. Not damaged,
gone. There's no *person* there any more. Fact.

If I might be able to tie Terri Schiavo to IMAX theaters in the South
for a moment, let me make one quick point:

The Catholic Church basically officially endorses evolution (that's
the IMAX tie-in), but it is quite clear that this does not mean it's
acceptable to believe that the "soul" or consciousness originates
through the physical phenomenon of the brain.

So, if I understand it correctly, the Catholic Church disputes (and
by extension, in theory, all good Catholics should dispute) that the
brain is what makes you a person or a soul.

Add to that all the philosophy classes where the subject of discourse
is something like "what is the relationship between the mind and
the brain?" (and where people genuinely disagree), and I think it
should be considered debatable that activity in the brain is the
source and reason for existence of the mind and its consciousness.

So, of course, that makes this whole thing even more complicated,
but do try to realize that some people really do believe that
consciousness may not be an effect of the brain (although most
people would probably agree that it is closely correlated with
the brain somehow). I have heard some very good arguments (most
notably one called "The Brain Prosthesis Experiment" in the back
of an Artificial Intelligence textbook) that the mind is an effect
of the brain, and while I cannot logically refute that argument,
on an intuitive level I remain pretty much totally convinced that
if I could build a working model of a brain, it would just be
a machine with no subjective sensation of consciousness like I
(as a human) have. Or at least I cannot understand how putting
together chemical reactions (and/or electrical signals) could
create the same subjective sensation I experience.

True, but without the physical structure of the brain, you would
experience pretty much nada.

Al

playon wrote in message
...
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:04:37 GMT, "Troy"
wrote:

its got nothing to do with recovery

Yes, it does. I certainly hope to hell someone pulls the plug on me
if I was in that situation.

Al

This is exactly the problem that I have with this case.There is no plug to
pull.I would want them to pull the plug on me also.....problem is she is not
on life support.If she was on life support pulling the plug would mean death
in minutes not days of starving to death.It would be more humain to put her
to sleep like a dog than to starve her to death.

Do you really want your government deciding your fate when you can't ?.....I
sure don't

Joe Sensor wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:

How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to
be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.

You suppose new footage would be suppressed if it showed more signs of
life?

"morron"? What the hell is that?



PS if you got something to say to me post it don't email me again ****
for
brains.......I don't need to hide behind fake name and email like you.

Yeah, I used to do that too. But right wing "pro life" fanatics such as
yourself have proven that you risk death just for giving an opinion. Pro
life indeed.

"**** for brains". Really classy - (..)

I'm out.


About as classy as the email you wrote to me.

Joe Sensor wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:

How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to
be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.

You suppose new footage would be suppressed if it showed more signs of
life?

"morron"? What the hell is that?



PS if you got something to say to me post it don't email me again ****
for
brains.......I don't need to hide behind fake name and email like you.

Yeah, I used to do that too. But right wing "pro life" fanatics such as
yourself have proven that you risk death just for giving an opinion. Pro
life indeed.


I am not against anyones right to die if that is their wish.....the problem
I have is the way its being done to her and its the courts and government
making the calls.This is not good for the future of mankind.


"**** for brains". Really classy - (..)

I'm out.

Troy wrote:



About as classy as the email you wrote to me.

Post the email

--
You know, I rather like this God fellow. Very theatrical, you know.
Pestilence here, a plague there. Omnipotence ... gotta get me some of that.

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 04:40:35 +0000, Logan Shaw wrote:

snip

Well, you are entitled to your belief...but there is nothing that
scientifically supports it.

George, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks


On 3/28/05 8:59 PM, in article
, "George Gleason"
wrote:


sorry I started into this with the facts
I hate clouding up someones heartfelt position
I need to exit this now as I see it is crossposted
and have no interest in joining your group or mucking up mine

Playon, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/28/05 10:28 PM, in article ,
"playon" wrote:

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 01:04:37 GMT, "Troy"
wrote:

its got nothing to do with recovery

Yes, it does. I certainly hope to hell someone pulls the plug on me
if I was in that situation.

Al

Ynotssor, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/28/05 11:21 PM, in article , "ynotssor"
wrote:

Sounds like she needs a new agent ...

Liam, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/28/05 11:37 PM, in article
, "Liam Slider"
wrote:

The brain has been studied, in general what parts do what is well known.
The important parts of Terri's brain are simply missing. Not damaged,
gone. There's no *person* there any more. Fact.

Loganm could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/28/05 11:40 PM, in article ,
"Logan Shaw" wrote:
... I have heard some very good arguments (most
notably one called "The Brain Prosthesis Experiment" in the back
of an Artificial Intelligence textbook) that the mind is an effect
of the brain, and while I cannot logically refute that argument,
on an intuitive level I remain pretty much totally convinced that
if I could build a working model of a brain, it would just be
a machine with no subjective sensation of consciousness like I
(as a human) have. Or at least I cannot understand how putting
together chemical reactions (and/or electrical signals) could
create the same subjective sensation I experience.

- Logan

Troy, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/29/05 5:27 AM, in article w4a2e.839150$6l.162594@pd7tw2no, "Troy"
wrote:


About as classy as the email you wrote to me.

Mr Flops, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/29/05 5:32 AM, in article ATCH, "Mr
Floppy" wrote:

Post the email

Liam, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?
Personally I hope it won;t be rap but whichever, limiting this would please
more folks overall.
Thanks

On 3/29/05 10:14 AM, in article
, "Liam Slider"
wrote:

Well, you are entitled to your belief...but there is nothing that
scientifically supports it.

On 3/29/05 10:37 AM, in article
, "George Gleason"
wrote:

SSJVCmag wrote:
George, could you pick ONE newsgroup to continue this in?

I am not in this conversation , I pulled out when I noticed the crossposts
g


Ummm, that WAS a crosspost... Until I pulled all but rap...

I miss that too sometimes.

jv

Liam Slider wrote:
Well, you are entitled to your belief...but there is nothing that
scientifically supports it.

The point wasn't what I believe about anything in particular.
The point was that it seems like a stretch to say it's "fact"
that "there's no person there anymore" because there is wide
philosophical disagreement about what makes a person, whether
the mind is an effect of the brain, etc.

- Logan

On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:55:12 +0000, Logan Shaw wrote:

whether
the mind is an effect of the brain, etc.

All scientific evidence points to it being...there are those that hold out
some small glimmer of hope that there's some unknowable, intangable,
extra, magical.....something that makes our minds work...but there's zero
evidence of it.

Liam Slider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:55:12 +0000, Logan Shaw wrote:

whether
the mind is an effect of the brain, etc.

All scientific evidence points to it being...there are those that hold out
some small glimmer of hope that there's some unknowable, intangable,
extra, magical.....something that makes our minds work...but there's zero
evidence of it.

I thought Voltaire and Pascal had this stuff all worked out?
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Liam Slider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:55:12 +0000, Logan Shaw wrote:


whether
the mind is an effect of the brain, etc.


All scientific evidence points to it being...there are those that hold out
some small glimmer of hope that there's some unknowable, intangable,
extra, magical.....something that makes our minds work...but there's zero
evidence of it.


AKA the "quantum consciousness" quacks.

They argue that our mind is not "simply" an evolved emergent property of
billions of neurons over billions of years, but that there also must be
some mysterious subatomic quantum effects going on, even though there's
no solid reason for that to be *necessary*. Interestingly, many of the
quantum consciousness quacks are ALSO religious, as if they're objecting
to the notion that a "soul" can be reduced to the sum of your earthly
neurons.

Liam Slider wrote:
On Tue, 29 Mar 2005 19:55:12 +0000, Logan Shaw wrote:

whether
the mind is an effect of the brain, etc.

All scientific evidence points to it being...there are those that hold out
some small glimmer of hope that there's some unknowable, intangable,
extra, magical.....something that makes our minds work...but there's zero
evidence of it.

The question is whether there is some sort of subjective consciousness
that exists independently of objective reality. I am not saying that
there necessarily is, but I don't see how observable, objective evidence
can help you investigate that. It's more of a philosophical question.
Yes, Turing proposed the Turing Test, but is there universal agreement
that something that passes the Turing Test has a mind? It would be a
good indicator of intelligence, but I have seen no convincing evidence
that intelligence and consciousness are the same thing.

Again, the point is not whether the mind is or isn't an effect of
the brain. The point is that it's disputed. There are two widely-held
views on this matter. One is called Monism (the view you seem to hold)
and the other is called Dualism. You may be confident in your own
ontological view, and that's fine, but it's not helpful to say that
your view is a fact.

- Logan

Troy wrote:


Joe Sensor wrote in message
...
Troy wrote:

How would you know.....there has been no new footage of her allowed to
be
filmed for over 5 years you morron.

You suppose new footage would be suppressed if it showed more signs of
life?

"morron"? What the hell is that?



PS if you got something to say to me post it don't email me again ****
for
brains.......I don't need to hide behind fake name and email like you.

Yeah, I used to do that too. But right wing "pro life" fanatics such as
yourself have proven that you risk death just for giving an opinion. Pro
life indeed.


I am not against anyones right to die if that is their wish.....the
problem I have is the way its being done to her and its the courts and
government making the calls.This is not good for the future of mankind.


"**** for brains". Really classy - (..)

I'm out.
That's the problem the government which we elect is not making the calls.
Courts everyday are making up their own laws and the people be dammed.
This judge warned that even putting an ice chip on her lips would land you
in jail. Something is real wrong here.
You need to be scared, very scared.