Whereas I think we should be very careful before we decide that someone would be better off dead. Bottom line, is she better off dead or is it just better for *him*?
So when we are talking about a possibility like that and it is being dismissed as unimportant I find it a little difficult to be overconcerned about maligning somoene who runs around saying his wife's brain is a bag of water. I don't have much respect for Larry's posts any more. You may have noticed that I didn't bother asking him for a citation for his assertion that there is no inventory for an abusive relationship, because there is no such citation -- I speak as one who has been through scholar.google.com pretty thoroughly -- and he won't bother to answer because he can't and he never admits it when he is wrong. Look. There is a profile. Whether you choose to believe ot like it or not. The assertion that there isn't is simply laughable. If you want to see the numbers that go with it, read the studies I posted. If you don't want to, quit complaining that the profile doesn't tell you that there is a 51.25 percent chance that you are in an abusive relationship. As in most things, reality is slightly different and more complex. Some people have risk factors and overcome them. Some people get help. Some people engage in denial and go there ::shrug:: Let's focus on what is important, you and I. The only reason this even matters is that it goes to Michael Schiavo's credibilty as spokesperson for Terri. It is possible for him to be both abusive and truthful, sure. But a doubt would arise. Now, some of saying that he fits the profile assumes that certain statements made by other people are accurate, sure. But let me see if I can get it all in one post without forgetting anything. After that, if you would like to believe that there is no such thing as domestic abuse, that Michael Schiavo is a great guy and the Schindlers are neurotic fools, hey my friend, whatever floats your boat. I have only persisted this long because you have struck me up to this point as someone who gives osme thought to things. OK. a) What seems to be uncontested is that neither one of this couple had much education and that neither had a terribly exciting job. There were issues with money. All of this is typical of the background to abuse but does not prove it existed. b) Where we start to fit a little more closely is that he chose a woman who was younger and overweight, who was shy and did not have a lot of self-confidence. She married the first guy she ever kissed. At 20. This proves nothing in and of itself but is somewhat suggestive in conjunction with a). c) This man is prone to rages when things are not to his liking. Remember "nursing hime administrator's nightmare"? d) His wife lost weight, became more attractive and more outspoken, and the marriage ran into difficulties. Could be coincidence but is very classic especially against a background of a and b. e) She wound up in the hospital on the eve of leaving him. Does assume that the woman saying this was telling the truth, but is almost diagnostic if true. Men with power issues can't stand to be left. >From here down we assume that certain people are telling the truth. The fit with the profile depends on whether they are in fact telling the truth of course. And there are things we will never know, such as whether he hit her, but there *are* those unexplained injuries, which a radiologist said in one of the links that I posted would be *required* to be reported if seen in a child. I have not seen a better explanation than his. One of Terri's family -- I believe it was the sister -- said that Michael attacked her the night Terri went to the hospital. According to the shrink who made the much-aligned original statement that he fit the profile, he used to check her odometer to make sure she wasn't going anywhere without his permission. Also very suggestive of advanced power issues. According to Cindy Shook, an ex-girlfriend who may of course have her own agenda, he used to stalk her. Also according to Cindy Shook, he was extremely jealous. Cindy Shook also said she was terrified of him and she did not come forward until she was supoenaed because she was convinced he would hurt her child. Cindy Shook investigated getting a restraining order. Cindy Shook said said that Shiavo blames Terri for ruining his life and felt he was entitled to compensation (she was his girlfriend at the time of the malpractice trial). She also said that he told her they never discussed last wishes. I don't remember the name of the nurse, but there were affidavits to the effect that Schiavo would call up and ask when the bitch was going to die. I still see no good reason for not allowing the blinds to be opened. There are concerns from this period that would amount to neglect if true, the wheelchair not being repaired, Terri not being allowed out of bed, infections, etc. I don't know if these are among the allegations that were dismissed as unfounded. Using her money would also qualify as abuse. Let's see, intimidatng, yes, a lot of people seem to decribe him that way and I think some of the staff used the word abusive in their affidavits; also, if true, he was very concerned about minor details of her daily regimen like making sure her hands weren't bandaged. Let's see, withholding food water or medical treatment, trifecta there.... Abusing pets, hmm, he had her cats put to sleep... Minimizing the abuse, saying the abuse never happened, ayup...shifting responsibility, yes, see above... Preventing the spouse from seeing family, isolating, yes.... Mock you or humiliate you, depends on whether you count being compared to a table lamp.... :P I'm done with this topic. Dana On 4/17/05, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Dana wrote: > > So. We are left with the fact that my opinion hasn't changed, and > > neither has yours :) I am glad that you don't have any stake in my > > I'm challenging you because you said, "he fits the profile." Based on > your responses, what you meant was that he met your subjective opinion > and not a objective probabilistic profile. > > The problem I have with that is in saying "he fits the profile" you > imply that you have some expertise in such matters and are making an > objective statement rather than an opinion - that's a lie of omission; > maybe in your case it's due to exuberance, I dunno. > > If Larry's post if accurate, my suspicion is is right: there's a bunch > of people that can't understand someone who's fighting for another's > decision they wouldn't make so they try to make sense of it by > inventing things to fit their fantasy rather than accepting what they > see. > > The problem with that is that they're messing with someone's life and > I think we should be very careful before we go doing that. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:154306 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
