When does Palin get her apologies?

[Plane]

Why is a discussion of end of life counseling contingent on an apology to Palin?

[][][][][][][]


Did the Trojans ever apologise to Casandra?

[BT]

Did the Trojans ever apologise to Casandra?

What does that question really mean?

I ask because "By all means let's ignore an opportunity to discuss "end of life counseling", as the left kept claiming was never in play, and instead dump on Palin." does not mean discussing "end of life counseling" was ever the intent of the poster. Apparently the whole purpose of this thread is to dump on the dumpers and vice versa.

 

[sirs]

And yet another, in a getting-much-longer-line of erroneous conclusions/assumptions.  I'm getting the impression that you no longer think I post to debate here, Bt, despite my frequent references/goal to facilitate exactly that.  That I post merely to irritate or offend.  I could keep posting my overt denial of such with copious examples, I could keep posting articles, op-eds, and my own opinions that are a completely contrary to such a notion, but from the consistently of your responses to me, it would seem you've made up your mind on that.  And just as ironic, erroneously yet again

Hopefully, I'm error on that deduction.  But based on the consistency of posts, much like the one I'm responding to, I'm guessing I'm pretty dead on

[BT]

"By all means let's ignore an opportunity to discuss "end of life counseling", as the left kept claiming was never in play, and instead dump on Palin."

Which to me meant that you wanted to discuss "end of life counseling".

My bad.

[sirs]

Yea it was, given what I responding to.  Your timeline has yet again been tweaked.  I post a serious article, with a catchy title, intending to facilitate serious debate

B take the opportunity to dump on Palin instead

I criticise B for that.  And THAT's the part you use to conclude "..end of life counseling" was ever the intent of the poster. Apparently the whole purpose of this thread is to dump on the dumpers and vice versa."

You also added to the apparent lack of wanting to disccuss the issue at hand, by erroneously inferring some apology was required before such discussions could take place, by inquiring why is such an apology necessary, rather than discuss the issue at hand

So bascially, you responded to me similar to how you erroneously thought I was responding to B

Yea, your bad

So, if you ever intend to disccus death panels, vs dumping on sirs, by all means, I'm all eyes.  If your intent is, as I deduced, merely trying to erroneously paint sirs as someone who doesn't want to debate issues, & merely dump on others, you can do that with Bsb to your heart's content

[Xavier_Onassis]

No one is going to apologize to Palin, though it MIGHT JUST BE POSSIBLE of enough of those who wanted an apology, including Palin, would hold their breath until it happens.

[bsb]

The first time Claire began to slide into a diabetic comma we, her kids and myself, should have let her go. The problem was the children weren't ready for that and it was not my place to push it. The result was I said nothing, and she lived for another year so debilitated she had to be strapped into a wheelchair, her head either to one side or another, couldn't speak, never responded, and during the last few months never left the bed.

Had there been a professional involved, instead of just me, to point out the ultimate compassion in letting her go at that point neither she, her children, or I would have suffered the additional 12 months.   

bsb

[sirs]

No one is going to apologize to Palin, though it MIGHT JUST BE POSSIBLE of enough of those who wanted an apology, including Palin, would hold their breath until it happens.

Who is "wanting" an apology? 

[Xavier_Onassis]

I assume whoever wrote the title of this topic.

[sirs]

Had there been a professional involved, instead of just me, to point out the ultimate compassion in letting her go at that point neither she, her children, or I would have suffered the additional 12 months.   bsb

My thoughts and compassion go out to you B (whether you wish to believe it or not, it is sincere).  I don't think the arguement has ever been NOT to have such professionals providing couseling, the issue remains what constitutional authority gives the Federal government the ability to take tax dollars from peron A, to provide for such counseling to person B?

More to the point, that this Federal "counseling", being that it is tax dollars, is going to be scrutinized, and likely going to facilitate such decisions to "let one go"....in order to save money, not your grief.  And not by your personal doctor or professional that knows your situation intimately, and has been connected with your family for years, but by a Government bureaucrat assigned to your case, who's already overwhelmed by hundreds, of not thousands, of other similar cases

[sirs]

I assume whoever wrote the title of this topic.

Looks like Bt isn't the only one making erroneous assumptions

[BT]

Yea it was, given what I responding to.  Your timeline has yet again been tweaked.  I post a serious article, with a catchy title, intending to facilitate serious debate

B take the opportunity to dump on Palin instead

I criticise B for that.  And THAT's the part you use to conclude "..end of life counseling" was ever the intent of the poster. Apparently the whole purpose of this thread is to dump on the dumpers and vice versa."

You also added to the apparent lack of wanting to disccuss the issue at hand, by erroneously inferring some apology was required before such discussions could take place, by inquiring why is such an apology necessary, rather than discuss the issue at hand

So bascially, you responded to me similar to how you erroneously thought I was responding to B

Yea, your bad

So, if you ever intend to disccus death panels, vs dumping on sirs, by all means, I'm all eyes.  If your intent is, as I deduced, merely trying to erroneously paint sirs as someone who doesn't want to debate issues, & merely dump on others, you can do that with Bsb to your heart's content

You seem to forget i had already moved on to the topic at hand, which you ignored.

[BT]

I assume whoever wrote the title of this topic.

That would be Sirs. Cal Thomas had a different title.

[sirs]

Yes, it was sirs who prompted the title....rhetorically

No, it wasn't sirs mandating or "wanting" an apology

As far as the later I supposedly "ignored", I had neither the time nor energy to deal with more than the initial erroneous conclusions you were making to start off with, at the time.  If you noticed Bsb's latest entry, if he had started with that, you wouldn't have been so grossly in error, in your current conclusions that I had no interest other than dumping

[BT]

Yes, it was sirs who prompted the title....rhetorically

So the title was not to be taken seriously?

As far as the later I supposedly "ignored", I had neither the time nor energy to deal with more than the initial erroneous conclusions you were making to start off with, at the time.

Apparently you still don't have the time nor energy to deal with my questions.