okay, fair enough. I just spent my bit of time on Larry, who isn't listening anyway, but I'll get back to this tonight probably. Thanks for the clarification.
Dana On 4/13/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > I have a tiny bit of time and wondered - what is it exactly that you > > object to in this discussion of Michael Schiavo? > > 1.) Measuring Mr. Schiavo against an utterly subjective abuser > profile. The only type of profile that should be used is a > scientifically derived objective one. For example, I think that you > can say that if a person is a male black over 18, there's a 50% chance > he's been to jail. I doubt you can say any such repeatable, provable > thing about abusers. That means your accusation is based on a > completely subjective profile, which is to say baseless, and therefore > immoral. > > 2.) Accusing Mr. Schiavo of being an abuser with no physical evidence > and little to no circumstantial evidence. > > 3.) Insulting virtually everyone connected to the case by implying > they're idiots who can't see the truth of Mr. Schiavo's abuse. > (Since, if there was, they could've used it to disqualify him from > guardianship). > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Find out how CFTicket can increase your company's customer support efficiency by 100% http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=49 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:153827 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
