| Revision as of 13:50, 13 July 2005 editDuckecho (talk | contribs)659 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:34, 14 July 2005 edit undoDuckecho (talk | contribs)659 editsNo edit summaryNext edit → | ||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
| ---- | ---- | ||
| == |
== The infamous non-win supreme court case == | ||
| (The account below is factual as can be seen from the docket cite within. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. A broad inference of the actual identity will probably be accurate. I've left the article here because when you see a lot of rhetoric that may appear to have something to say remember this article and the reaction one editor had to it that it exhibited ''a pattern of deceit'' in the fictional party described.) | |||
| I picked up on a little bit of that from the Talk page. | |||
| Some people here are unbelievable. | |||
| Take a look at the ] Talk: page for some more wingnuttery on parade. | |||
| --] 04:47, 15 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Automatic GW reverts == | |||
| he's become quite the verbose and pesky varmint... ] 02:04, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| '''''Wagon,''''' if you want to impress us with your accomplishments or research in the Schiavo case, post them on the talk page, but unjustified criticism of another's accomplishments makes not your own. --] 10:45, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Misplaced Pages isn't about impressing people, Gordon. FuelWagon isn't adding links to his site.--] 23:19, 16 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == The infamous non-win supreme court case == | |||
| One can't help but notice the number of references to GW and his 4-3 trouncing in the Florida Supreme Court. He throws it up at us in nearly every other paragraph: | One can't help but notice the number of references to GW and his 4-3 trouncing in the Florida Supreme Court. He throws it up at us in nearly every other paragraph: | ||
| Line 66: | Line 50: | ||
| Then Gordo filed a motion for reinstatement (one day late—what a surprise), which was also a concurrent motion for clarification, both of which were denied. | Then Gordo filed a motion for reinstatement (one day late—what a surprise), which was also a concurrent motion for clarification, both of which were denied. | ||
| Gordo filed a motion for a stay pending review, a motion to expedite, and a motion to file |
Gordo filed a motion for a stay pending review, a motion to expedite, and a motion to file electronically. The court granted the motion to file electronically but denied the other two motions because they had been rendered moot by the denial of the motion for reinstatement. | ||
| Gordo then filed a motion for clarification which was stricken as unauthorized. | Gordo then filed a motion for clarification which was stricken as unauthorized. | ||
| Now if you had trouble following that, let me help. The court never considered the facts of the motion. They dismissed it as untimely. The only motion they actually considered (other than the |
Now if you had trouble following that, let me help. The court never considered the facts of the motion. They dismissed it as untimely. The only motion they actually considered (other than the insignificant motion to file electronically) was the motion to reinstate the motion for habeus corpus. That motion was the one the court turned down 4-3. | ||
| So comparing this case to Bush's appeal to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals, is laughable. It's pure fantasy to draw any comparison at all. Hearings were held and facts were argued in the Bush case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the appeals court. It was Bush's appeal for reinstatement that was overturned 7-0. | So comparing this case to Bush's appeal to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals, is laughable. It's pure fantasy to draw any comparison at all. Hearings were held and facts were argued in the Bush case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the appeals court. It was Bush's appeal for reinstatement that was overturned 7-0. | ||
| Line 77: | Line 61: | ||
| I just thought you'd like to know that it is a matter public record that Gordo is a legend in his own mind. ] 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | I just thought you'd like to know that it is a matter public record that Gordo is a legend in his own mind. ] 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | ||
| :OMG! that is too damn funny. ] 20:35, 17 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ongoing efforts on the ] page == | |||
| Thank you for putting in the energy that I haven't been able to lately. My whole family's been ill. Your attempt to go line-by-line is the best way to go. I just hope the extremists don't unwind it too much.--] 13:48, 24 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Once again...Kudos. And thanks.--] 21:50, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ''Spelling error'' LMAO! You were right. Fruedian slip. ;-) Thanks for the head's up.--] 03:52, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ===Palm Sunday rewrite=== | |||
| I understand your concern that the admin's reaction/lack of reaction during the week of the 3/20/05 to various events may not fit well as written. I'm not yet satisfied with it, and I'd like to see if we can tweak it. A statement of fact about the controversy surronding reactions (with link) to both cases fits better in the ] article than it does in the ]. In fact, in the RLHS massacre article, the paragraph was removed because the relavence was questioned. I added a link in the References table there rather than reinsert the paragraph. I think the Terri Schiavo article needs to mention '''something''' in order to suggest motivations for the extraordinary efforts surrounding the compromise and encouraging the reader to dig deeper. Should this mention the ]? Would the RLHS reference make more sense in the context of the memo? Whatever, we should keep things to one or two sentences that encourage research.--] 12:50, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| You replaced the entire ] page with just a single subsection thereof. Is that what you intended to do? ] 22:05, May 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Geez, you're quick. No it wasn't. I don't know how it happened, and I noticed it and fixed it immediately. ] 22:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::I watch the recent changes feed for edits that remove over 2000 bytes and investigate them for reasonability. This is especially the case for Talk: pages, which generally should never shrink, except when being archived. ] 22:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == ] == | |||
| I think you ran into the same problem on this page, too. ] 01:46, May 27, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Yep, I fixed it. --] | ] 03:16, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Name format == | |||
| Minor quibble ... yes, the Chuck Yeager and Joe foss pages use the "first, middle, nickname, surname" format, but then again the Bill Gates page uses the "commonly known as" form, and we already got rid of that one. I don't like eaither, but also, 'Terri' isn't really a nickname, it's an abbreviation of 'Theresa'. To me, Theresa Marie 'Terri' Schiavo is ugly ... how about we go with the version we discussed on the talk page? ("Terri Schiavo, full name Theresa Marie Schiavo")? ] 15:33, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case == | |||
| Mistakes happen, and I'm no stranger to them. For example, just yesterday I mistakenly redirected an article to the wrong page and moved an article instead of redirecting. I was able to fix the former, but now I need the help of an admin to fix the latter. So, you're not alone. I don't think anyone thinks of you as a vandal. --] | ] 22:18, 27 May 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == For a good laugh...Comments from A ghost== | |||
| Come see the mess FuelWagon and I got ourselves into on the ] page. And I thought the ] article needed work...it was a warm-up.--] 03:57, 7 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| --] 19:42, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :'''Re:Uncle Ed's rewrite of the intro:''' Yeah, I wasn't completely happy with his version either. For what it's worth, the revert was done with regret. But I let the genie out of the bottle, so I've got to take responsability for some of the consequences. Unfortunately, Ed's first instinct seems to be that we can all gather around the fire, eat brownies and sing ''Kumbaya''. I tried; it doesn't work. He may have to learn the error of this approach through experience.--] 15:20, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Yeah, if I remember, your revert was when I was on a mission regarding mentioning the ]. I didn't complain because I gave up and swallowed my pride. I was right, but it was becoming clear that I hold a minority opinion on that one and that it wasn't going to be respected. So, I chose to be a part of the community rather than not. Such are the sacrifices we make to be good neighbors. 8-) --] 16:31, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::'''Re: Reducing article size on ]:''' You may want to have a look at the article splits done on ] & ] to have a better idea of what I propose. ] was originally opposed, but has since become a convert. I didn't provide links of the examples on the ] page because I'd rather avoid sharing trolls.--] 17:53, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::Also, I had done similar tightening on the ], but it was ignored and is quite out of date. Hope it helps.--] 18:02, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::::SWMBO - LOL. I have one too. Terri (my wife) doesn't really understand why we care, be respects that we do. Please convey my thanks for you time to your Lady. Your efforts on this page have kept several things from spiraling out of control. And what keeps me motivated is the thought of my children (or yours) using this as a resource. They're who I write for.--] 18:31, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Re:sectional NPOV flag - Nah, we're kool. I knew it wasn't a shot at me. In fact, it was a 'check' manuver on Mr. Dave. It was meant to force him to admit that that one little stupid line was the only thing he had an issue with (for now). That left him with the options of 1)leaving it, and admiting he was being petty; 2) yank it and reinsert the general NPOV, allowing me to escalate; 3) yank it altogether. Either way, I win. I've played various games at tournament levels for years. I'm in an endgame with Mr. Dave. And I play to win.--] 02:42, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Re:''"Holidays must have been hell for you."''LOL. No, they were great. It was like watching Jon Stewart's segment of Comedy Central for hours. LMAO(it's on now). And Bill Moyers just said, "If Mark Twain was alive, he'd be working at Comedy Central." Although the Ford/Carter campaign was tense. Grandma (the Senator) and Grandpa were politicians and lawyers by trade; singers and comedic actors (Gilbert & Sullivan) by choice.--] 04:00, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on ]. I ask for your support.--] 20:17, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Re:spelling corrections. NP, bro. Thx. My spell checker (me) is on the frizizzle.--] 22:35, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Re: '''Dr. Cranford''' - WOW! Good Job!--] 6 July 2005 21:50 (UTC) | |||
| ==Mediator's Announcement== | |||
| You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the ] article. Initial discussion is beginning at ]. ] ] 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Do you have any online references for the information you intend to insert? I'm happy for you to add it as it's hard to review without something to work from. -- ] | ] 02:39, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Excellent. I look forward to seeing it all fall into place :) -- ] | ] 02:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Actually I prefer the information in the one article. They're both legal terms and somewhat related. -- ] | ] 03:16, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :::If that's what you call a draft, I think it's pretty bloody good. I'm all the more informed, thanks. -- ] | ] 15:24, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == In re ] == | |||
| Hi there, not sure about Wikittiquet on replying user page discussions, but I responded to your question on my ]. ~ ] 15:09, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ==]== | |||
| Sorry, I totally screwed up. Thought I was inserting when I was removing (how'd that happen? weird!) --]|] 28 June 2005 16:50 (UTC) | |||
| :I appreciate you owning up to it. I don't take it kindly when someone swoops in and does a fly-by-night revert of a perfectly sound edit of mine (or anyone else) with clearly no research. We've had quite a bit of a problem with Neutrality over that, too (and as I reflect on it, I believe he's the one who took ''sic'' out in a fit of drive-by vandalism shortly after the autopsy report came out). However, if you had looked at my edit, you would have plainly seen that the sic was there and that you weren't in fact ''inserting'' anything. I've been working on TS daily for several months and am one of the respected editors there, even by the malcontents. Even if you don't agree with something I may have done with the article, I deserve at least a complete look before acting, '''and''' since there's a ''controversial'' tag on the talk page it's incumbent on you to see what's going on with the article before you make any edits. ] (] 29 June 2005 17:23 (UTC) | |||
| :: Beware of the proprietorial attitude. Editors make mistakes and of course we own up to them, but you're getting close to the point where you're asserting that your edits are intrinsically better than other edits because you're "respected". That isn't how Misplaced Pages works. --]|] 29 June 2005 10:52 (UTC) | |||
| :::Not even remotely close. My point about being respected was to illustrate that I'm not some wack-job who just fell off the turnip truck nor unknowledgable on the subject of the article and the process of improving it. That's as opposed to someone who just whistles through without so much as a word of discussion and makes edits that not only indicate a complete lack of awareness of what they're doing but is exactly the opposite of what they might have intended. I'd say that's beyond the point of thinking that one's edits are intrinsically better than the consensus edits of an active team just because…they're what, an administrator? How very…''proprietorial''. ] (] 29 June 2005 12:51 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Well now you're comparing other editors to "some wack-job who just fell off the turnip truck" --]|] 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::Tony, you're reading an attack where none exists. Duckecho mentions whack-jobs who just fell off a turnip truck, but ''he compares no one to that measure''. There is a difference between comparing john-jacob-jingle-heimer-shmidt to a whack-job-off-the-turnip-truck, and just talking about whack-jobs in general and mentioning no one specifically. If you've never encountered a whack-job on the internet, you're either inexperienced or extremely lucky. They exist. There are plenty of them on the net and some of them even come on wikipedia. From this point on, your conversation with Duck stops and you're talking to to your perception of an attacker. Not surprisingly, the conversation breaks down completely. It would be funny if it weren't tragic. ] 30 June 2005 22:36 (UTC) | |||
| :::::I'm beginning to see the problem. I would have thought that with your experience you would be aware that there are people who come through[REDACTED] and vandalize articles, in some case by completely deleting them, often with bizarre and tasteless comments. Is it fair to suggest that those editors are less than optimum for wikipedia? Is it unfair to suggest that I'm not one of them? ] (] 29 June 2005 13:38 (UTC) | |||
| ::::…and you're falsely accusing me of using my administrator status. --]|] 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Please spare me the victim response. I did no such thing. My point clearly was that as an administrator, you of all people should know better than to undo the earnest work of other editors without even bothering to see what it was that needed your apparent wisdom. Moreover, I wasn't even talking about just you, which can clearly be seen in my initial post. ] (] 29 June 2005 13:38 (UTC) | |||
| ::::I don't know where all this hostility is coming from, but I think it's appropriate to counsel against continuing to treat other editors in this way. --]|] 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Then I suggest you reread my posts. I take exception to people putting hard work and effort into a project only to have it undone by a party, who by virtue of their position should be very sensitive to structure and policy, coming by, without any participation in the discussion page and makes an ill advised edit. There's nothing inappropriate about being defensive of the work fellow editors have done, and protective of unknowledgable parties' undoing of that work. I think it's appropriate to heed your own counsel. ] (] 29 June 2005 13:38 (UTC) | |||
| ::::Please show some respect. --]|] 29 June 2005 12:59 (UTC) | |||
| :::::Given when earned. Your responses and attitude have unearned mine. You had my respect when you owned up to your misguided edit. You lost it when you started accusing me of having a superior attitude when I made no such assertion. You can start rehabilitating yourself by taking a look at your own attitude and discontinuing the hyprbole. ] (] 29 June 2005 13:38 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::Okay, you've convinced me. Now I recognise that you *are* a problem user and as an administrator I've added you to my list of editors to watch carefully. I want you to read and, over the next few weeks, demonstrate a clear understanding ]. --]|] 29 June 2005 16:45 (UTC) | |||
| :::::::'''Now''' you may consider yourself accused of ''mis''using your administrator status and engaging in a personal attack. Your idea of a debate over a difference of opinion is apparently to throw your weight around. Well done. Have fun. ] (] 29 June 2005 18:06 (UTC) | |||
| ::::::::For a second time you falsely accuse me of throwing my weight around. Do read ], and attempt to implement it in your engagements with others. --]|] 29 June 2005 19:58 (UTC) | |||
| If I may...You're both right, and both wrong. The ''proprietorial attitude'' came thru from both of you, but isn't entirely out of place, because you're both respected editors. However, I must protest Duckecho being ] over this matter. And if he is, then I think it would be best if you added yourself. This was a misunderstanding that's spirialed out of proportion. Nothing more.--] 30 June 2005 15:36 (UTC) | |||
| I made a post related to this discussion on Tony's talk page . ] 1 July 2005 00:05 (UTC) | |||
| :I've asked Tony to publicise his greylist, so that we are all clear who else he is watching in this way. ] 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Re Gordie == | |||
| Thanks for pointing that out. There's a joke in there somewhere about repression that I'm not going into. Incidentally, your Talk page has been quite informative about Mr. Watts. ]. A pattern of deception - I feel rather less bad about being a bit sharp with him.~ ] July 3, 2005 17:30 (UTC) | |||
| ==Empress Matilda== | |||
| Hi Duckecho. No problem at all with the moving of the page :-) To be honest I always thought she was known as Empress Matilda too but I made the redirect because you lapsed on redirecting the article. But well done on the research anyhoo. Happy editing! ] ] (]) July 5, 2005 20:50 (UTC) | |||
| == "Diagnosed as" == | |||
| You'll want to read Ann's note, Duck. Just a heads up in case you haven't seen it. It's under London bombings.~ ] | ] | ] July 8, 2005 22:53 (UTC) | |||
| == Intro == | |||
| Duck, very sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner re the Intro. I've left a response on the horribly cluttered Talk page, but here's a version of the intro I put together. It's kindasorta what I have in mind. | |||
| :Lead sentence (unchanged): Theresa Marie "Terri" Schiavo (3 December 1963–31 March 2005), was a St. Petersburg, Florida woman whose medical circumstances and attendant legal battles led to landmark court decisions, historical legislative initiatives, and intense media attention. | |||
| :1.On ], ], Schiavo (pronounced ''SHY-voh'', ]: {{IPA|ʃaɪvoʊ}}) experienced ] and collapsed in her home. Despite heroic resuscitative measures, she suffered severe ] from the ensuing ], briefly lapsed into a ], and spent the remaining 15 years of her life in a condition diagnosed as an irreversible ] (PVS). | |||
| :2. During her final years, a major dispute broke out between her parents, Robert and Mary Schindler, and her husband and ], Michael Schiavo. Mr. Schiavo felt that his wife would not have wished to be maintained in an irreversible vegetative state through artificial means; the Schindlers disputed this. Their disagreement led to years of acrimonious ] battles, and focused attention, in a very public way, on controversies over ], substitute decision-making, ], and end-of-life care. In the highly publicized court disputes that ensued, even the medical diagnosis of Schiavo's altered state of ] was questioned and litigated. | |||
| :3.At its height, the dispute made its way into the chambers of the United States ], when a law was passed to transfer jurisdiction of the Schiavo case from the Florida state courts to federal courts. | |||
| :4. The courts, at both state and federal levels, consistently ruled in favor of removing artificial nutrition that was being used to maintain Schiavo in an irreversible vegetative state. Terri Schiavo died on ], 2005 at approximately 9:05 a.m. EST. | |||
| ~ ] | ] | ] 23:16, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| Hey Duck (I can't believe I'm calling a gentleman almost twice my age that. I have an urge to begin each correspondence with you henceforth with, "Mr. Duckecho, sir, if you please..."). I'll adress your questions in turn. Numerals refer to those above. | |||
| Lead - we're agreed. | |||
| 1. The ''evolved into'' jarred a bit, Duck. If your para was fixed, and there was only one thing I could change, that's what I' d change. I suspected when I read it you were fishing for something else but didn't quite get it. | |||
| 2. You're correct - there is more in there than there needs to be. Yes, names can be excised. The clauses with "public" in them are redundant, so one "public" may be chopped. The rest of that paragraph is a microcosm of the Schiavo story. I feel we need to be "general" (for example, I think that naming or numbering doctors who did this or that probably hurts the article - it's too much detail and it will turn people off; Fuel may disagree); yet, we do need to say ''what this story is about''. If we don't the intro fails. The story is about a woman who lost all that which makes us truly human, and whose loved ones couldn't agree on what to do after that. That basic story needs to be told, simply, I agree, but somewhere. In my version I put it in #2. | |||
| 3.This bit happened because it was difficult to work the Congressional battle into 2 (although we certainly could do it if we wanted; but the quality of 2 will drop, methinks). Initially I added a second sentence in 3, on federalism etc etc, which "bloated" (lol) it appropriately. But I then decided it wasn't necessary. Quite forgot your aversion to 1 sentence paras. We could strike it altogether... I can't see how we could put it in 4. Although sentence 1 in para 4 can easily become sentence two in para 3, thereby solving your problem. Hmm. The more I think of it, the nicer it sounds. | |||
| 4. If we move the first sentence here to para 3, we could end with your old closer. | |||
| ] | ] | ] | |||
| ==WotD== | |||
| quoi? ] 05:05, 10 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::, . ] | ] | ] 06:45, July 10, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Terri Schiavo == | |||
| Bickering with the likes of Gordon Watts just takes up too much time. I caution you not to allow the heat of the moment get the better of you and break the 3RR. Others will support you. It's perfectly okay to message or email users who you feel will support your edits. Just don't put yourself in the wrong. It makes "breaking the rules" the issue rather than the correctness or otherwise of the respective edits. ] 03:50, 11 July 2005 (UTC) | |||
| :Hi Duck, thanks for your note. I didn't entirely follow Gordon's explanation, but from what I can see, there was no technical violation of 3RR, though Gordon feels there was a violation in spirit. I wouldn't block you anyway without a warning, so consider yourself warned. Try to seek consensus on the talk page, or involve other editors. As this dispute has been going on a long time, you might also consider formal or informal mediation. Cheers, ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:17, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| ::Okay, sorry, I see you've already set up mediation. Good luck with it. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 04:31, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
| == Ghost == | |||
| Duck, whither goest ghost? He ok? ~ ] | ] | ] → 14:24, July 11, 2005 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 17:34, 14 July 2005
Because of their length or pertinency, some or all of the previous discussions on this page may have been archived.
The infamous non-win supreme court case
(The account below is factual as can be seen from the docket cite within. The names have been changed to protect the innocent. A broad inference of the actual identity will probably be accurate. I've left the article here because when you see a lot of rhetoric that may appear to have something to say remember this article and the reaction one editor had to it that it exhibited a pattern of deceit in the fictional party described.)
One can't help but notice the number of references to GW and his 4-3 trouncing in the Florida Supreme Court. He throws it up at us in nearly every other paragraph:
- "...like what I did in court,"
- "I was the most successful litigant on the "losing" side...,"
- "ompare how well I did in court with the lame governor...,"
- "I did better than Jeb...,"
- "...and let me remind you that I got further than both Conigliaro and Bush combined, in my near win in court...,"
- "and let's not forget that I played a central role in the Schiavo case, and, in some instances did better than the Florida Governor in court...,"
- "... if my success in court was so great...,"
- "...how does everybody think I got to where I am today with my near win in court?,"
- "et's not forget that I came closer than the Florida Governor to having saved Terri in court...,"
- "ace it: I came very close to winning in court in the most celebrated case of the century...,"
- "... the fellow who almost won in court...,"
- "...who exactly did better than me in court in trying to save Terri...,"
- "...my achievement in court was better than that of the big players...,"
- "...he who was not equaled in court in efforts to save Terri...,"
Those are just the ones I could find in a hurry. Almost every editor who has a talk page will have one or more of the same sort of self aggrandizing hooey.
I finally (I wish I had done it sooner) took a look at this celebrated and unprecedented court case and here is what I found (you can see for yourself by going to the Supreme Court Docket Search page and search under SC03-2420):
Gordo filed a motion of habeus corpus and at the same time filed an affidavit of indigency (translation: too cheap to pay the fee). Unfortunately, Gordo didn't bother to find out the proper way to file and the court struck his motion, although they gave him ten days to refile properly. The next day Gordo filed a Notice of Supplemental Authority and an Appendix. The first was stricken because it didn't comply with court rules (a theme that will be repeated).
Almost a month later (and fifteen days late) Gordo filed his amended motion for habeus corpus, an amended appendix, a cover letter, and a motion for time extension.
On 23 Feb, 2005, the court denied the motion for habeus corpus due to failure to comply with the court's directed timetable and struck all related motions as moot.
Then Gordo filed a motion for reinstatement (one day late—what a surprise), which was also a concurrent motion for clarification, both of which were denied.
Gordo filed a motion for a stay pending review, a motion to expedite, and a motion to file electronically. The court granted the motion to file electronically but denied the other two motions because they had been rendered moot by the denial of the motion for reinstatement.
Gordo then filed a motion for clarification which was stricken as unauthorized.
Now if you had trouble following that, let me help. The court never considered the facts of the motion. They dismissed it as untimely. The only motion they actually considered (other than the insignificant motion to file electronically) was the motion to reinstate the motion for habeus corpus. That motion was the one the court turned down 4-3.
So comparing this case to Bush's appeal to overturn a decision of the Court of Appeals, is laughable. It's pure fantasy to draw any comparison at all. Hearings were held and facts were argued in the Bush case. The Florida Supreme Court upheld the appeals court. It was Bush's appeal for reinstatement that was overturned 7-0.
For Gordo to trumpet that he got farther or closer than Bush is pure nonsense. For icing on the cake, Gordo uttered this classic, "...but probably they would not have even considered my case..." Hello! They didn't consider your case. It got thrown out as untimely and improperly filed.
I just thought you'd like to know that it is a matter public record that Gordo is a legend in his own mind. Duckecho 20:20, 17 May 2005 (UTC)