User talk:GordonWatts/Archive02

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  • DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
  • DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
  • DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.
  • This archive page covers approximately the dates between May 30,2005 and August 08,2005.
  • Post replies to the main talk page, copying and pasting the section to which you are replying, if necessary. To post a reply, you merely click on the appropriate 'Edit' tab, and then you type in your comments and click on 'Save page' -unless, of course, you want to preview it first, in which case you would click on 'Show preview'. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.)


Testing out new signature:--GordonWattsDotCom 12:48, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Recent edits to the Government involvement in the Terri Schiavo case article & further comments from A ghost

My compliments on yout recent work. It's relatively NPOV, and adds value. Thank you.--ghost 05:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome; Celebration for minor progress.--GordonWattsDotCom 08:50, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

Glad to see you've kept your sense of humor, in spite of the ants... LOL. Anyway, best wishes to you. And I tend to agree with your contention that the autopsy isn't likely to settle anything. *sigh* Oh well. I guess I'll jump in and clean things up once the rhethoric cools down.--ghost 00:49, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
LOL. Gordon, can you EVER answer a question in less than 20 words? JK, man. I thought I was verbose, but you make me look good.--ghost 16:59, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
You're so funny!--GordonWattsDotCom 17:06, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Traffic Court

Hello. I could not help but notice a comment you made on the Terri Schiavo talk page: "For example, I recently had a traffic ticket, and I was dismissed. I told the Court that I had not been allowed to present my brief, and I moved for rehearing. The court granted. (In other words, I won my motion for rehearing: The court said "yes" to me, but I still have not won the case, even after a year!). Upon attempts to file a brief, I cited case law that permitted me to summon the record to include in case I wanted to back up my allegations in my brief. Although I was right, and case law supported me, the court did NOT grant my petition to file a brief with the necessary documentation to make my case. As of this writing, it's been about a year with no decision from the court. I haven't been dismissed on this, but I have not won."

Just so that I understand, you were issued a traffic citation. You went to court for your pre-trial hearing, at which time your case was dismissed and you argued with the judge to reverse the dismissal, or, you went to trial, at which time the judge dismissed your case and you argued to reverse the dismissal. Interpreting your version, the judge reversed the dismissal, creating a live case. Also based on what you say, you are still in traffic court, so there has been no trial/no adjudication and it is not up on appeal.

I had a pre-trial hearing, pled innocent, and "had a trial" before a traffic court judge, but my witness didn't show up, and she continued it: The state had a chance to serve the witness while he was in jail on an unrelated child support issue, but served the wrong jail! The witness didn't show up a 2nd time, even though I tried to locate him, and this time, the traffic judge certified the case to the county court, and that judge was bad. When my witness didn't show up a thuird time, the trial proceeded, and the state implicitly agreed with the police officer about my supposed improper backing, which was, in my case, permitted by the relevent statute.
(1) At this moment, I do not have the time to dig up Traffic Court rules, but I recommend you read them. (If you intend to keep appearing pro se, you really need to read and understand the rules.) It might even be helpful to try and call the clerk of courts and ask them questions from time to time (specific, procedural questions).
You sound like a lawyer! I read the rules, but they were vague and had lots of leeway, or "wiggle room" for the courts' judges to do whatever they wanted.
(2) Ordinarily, you can file a motion with a memorandum of law in support of your position (pre-trial). You do not file a brief. You never file a brief. It is neither the time nor the place for a brief. You do not petition the court to file a brief. No briefs. Common motions are motion to dismiss or a motion for summary judgment, to which you would attach your legal argument (memorandum of law) as to why your case should be dismissed. Since your case was dismissed by the judge initially, this seems horribly redundant and wasteful of taxpayer money and court time.
I filed a motion for rehearing before the county judge, and got dismissed; I appealed to the appeals division in the circuit court, and was dismissed, but made a motion for rehearing based on not being able to file a brief. My motion for rehearing was granted, and then I filed a motion to have the transcript introduced into the record, and supported this motion with the proper rules of civil procedure. The court never ruled on it. I am in "limbo." Ironically, I saw a cite on Abstract Appeal that I found supported my case: In that motion, I included case law that said that it was fundamental error or something to dismiss without letting the transcript to go into the record. Nonetheless, the court didn't rule on it.
(3) In civil court, if there has been no action on a case for a year, the case is automatically dismissed for failure to prosecute. (Fla. R. Civ. Pro. 1.420(e))
I had been thinking about that rule, but note that it includes the language that "Mere inaction for a period of less than 1 year shall not be sufficient cause for dismissal for failure to prosecute." Nonetheless, the judge is going to do what he wants to anyways. Evidence of that is the fact that some of the actinos by that judge violated my right to have the transcript put in the record, explicitlly prohibitted by case law; For him to merely dismiss on the motion of the court (probably technically permitted), based on this rule of priocedure, would not be explicitly prohibitted, merely an abuse of authority, so he would probably be more likely to do so. Yet, the combination of my last motion plus a motion for clarification might make the day. You never really know...
(4) You need to check with your county clerk/traffic court to see if the case is officially dismissed, instead of making the statement that you did above. My suspicion is that it is dismissed.
I never got notification of it being dismissed, but you make a good point; mail can be lost...
(5) Unless you left a great deal out of the above, I would like to point out that the initial dismissal (or any subsequent dismissal) was a "win" for you. You do not mention if you were fined, had to go to traffic school, had points put on your record, your car insurance went up, etc., so I am going to conclude that your case was dismissed with no detriment to your record. It means you have won without even needing a trial. It is what most people aim to achieve. Try and undestand: a dismissal under these circumstances is a "win."
I was fined, and my trip to traffic court bumped up the fine, and then when I asked to go to traffic school after judgement, I was denied; I chose to not ask initially for traffic school, becuase I was innocent, and didn't want to pay a traffic school fee and use up one of my limited allowed school usages. We only get to go to traffic school a limited number of times to erase the points.
(6) Finally, a personal request from me that you not waste any more of that court's time or our taxpayer money pursuing a frivolous argument.

--Mia-Cle 00:49, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

That is a good point, but the state has more reseources than me. It would make more sense to conside whether it wastes my time. It is a close call, becuase the injustice is reason to pursue, but it might be too costly in the long run, evoking the feeling of diminishing returns, "marginial utility," that is making a mountain out of a molehill.--GordonWattsDotCom 11:00, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mel Martinez edits and so forth

Thanks for your compliment, I appreciate it. However, I don't think I'd have been of much use in the Terri Schiavo fiasco - the entire thing was hopeless from the start, so long as the governor refused to use his power to enforce the law (DFC could and should have taken custody, and the ruling that they could not should defninitely have been appealed), and so long as Congress was determined to pass toothless measures that created nothing more than the illusion of review in the federal courts. -- BD2412 talk 02:00, 2005 Jun 1 (UTC)

Well, it was worth a try -even after the fact -to ask you, to "stay in the spirit of things," so to speak. However, unfortunately, I think you are right. Lame duck president and governor, were also just plain "lame." The law was on their side, but they decided and chose not to enforce, obey, and/or uphold. Poor Terri; we hope she's doing better now-a-day, and in a better place.--GordonWattsDotCom 10:41, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Mediator's Announcement

You are invited to participate in the Mediation regarding the Terry Schiavo article. Initial discussion is beginning at Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:28, Jun 20, 2005 (UTC)

I have asked for disciplinary measures against NCDave on Talk:Terri Schiavo/Mediation#It's time to deal with the bully. I ask for your support.--ghost 20:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Taste the Rainbow

Hey, dude, your signature ends up taking up about five lines of space on an edit window for the rest of use editors. That's more than an good length paragraph. I know you're one of the special people who almost won the Terri Schiavo case, but you think you could pretend to be like the rest of us mortals and use a simple text signature? Sheesh. FuelWagon 28 June 2005 23:42 (UTC)

Testing out new signature. --GordonWattsDotCom 30 June 2005 02:07 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo photo

Thanks. Actually I wasn't exactly requesting the pic to stay. It was more along the lines of "this photo shows a better 'portrait' of Jimbo than the first." Anywho, about my log in name. No, it does not refer to Martians. It actually is a name that I have been using for quite a while. The Martin part is a reference to Mark Martin, a NASCAR Nextel Cup driver. The man part is basically symbolising the fact that I am a fan of him, but Martinfan just doesn't sound as good to me. The number is just a random number I use. For instance, on one website my username will be "Martinman14" and another "Martinman20032003", but I only put a number if "Martinman" has already be taken. As for the "student balloon pilot" part or your statement, I didn't understand clearly what you where asking. -Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 02:28 (UTC)

Whoops. I was reading your comment again and I realized what you meant. My line of work is not that in the sense of a job per se. I am in training to become licensed by the FFA as a private hot air balloon pilot. That is a hobby of mine. My actual job is operator of my own film studio. I also direct. -Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 02:38 (UTC)
Recieved your new comment. I'm glad you liked that location joke. I got the idea from a play by the name of, Visit to a Small Planet, it's actually a very good play. (I believe that they made it into a movie too. Try IMDB.) About the nickname, "Hoekenheef." I made that up whilst playing a game with a friend and it is actually a pun on my last name, although the only resemblance is the first three letters. -Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 02:46 (UTC)
Not another "Martinman"? Try these:

-Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 02:53 (UTC)

Amazing, isn't it? -Hoekenheef 1 July 2005 03:05 (UTC)

[edit] Re: extensions

Thanks for your help. I should've figured that out by myself. I was thinking cause there was a / there might be something special to do. Like on a regular website. But of course this is Wikipedia. Thanks very much Redwolf24 2 July 2005 02:43 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

Barnstar for you for your help with me and others. I've been asking that for a while yet no ones ever responded. Redwolf24 2 July 2005 02:48 (UTC)

Wow. Thanks. I guess my suggestion worked, after all. --GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 03:15 (UTC)

[edit] Thank you.

Thanks for the improvement of a section of my user page. That was a kind thing of you to do and it was appreciated. -Hoekenheef 2 July 2005 03:33 (UTC)

No problemo. It just took a second to remove the line break and make the paragraph whole again.--GordonWattsDotCom 2 July 2005 03:44 (UTC)

[edit] The Schiavo doctors

Hey there Gordon, just wanted to let you know I've responded to some of your comments on this subject on my own Talk page (trying not to use Schiavo Talk for discussions not strictly related to the article). I come off a bit stern, but I mean well. The thing that made me post that is that I perceive a lot of factual distortion in your posts on this subject in Schiavo Talk, rather unlike your usual contributions. If I've erred, I'll be glad to have your response.~ Neuroscientist July 3, 2005 11:51 (UTC)

[edit] Were my colors THAT bad?

Yes. --Calton | Talk 03:27, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

OH. Sorry. Maybe I wasn;t bright enough or big enough ...

Yo! Is this BETTER!! Blahh...
Just kidding.--GordonWattsDotCom 03:33, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Hi Gordon, thanks for your note. I'm afraid I didn't follow it entirely, but the important point is that we can only block for technical violations of 3RR; the gaming-the-system thing is a bit nebulous. SlimVirgin (talk) 04:12, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

I'm still not clear on your point. I'd say forget the apparent 3RR violation and get on with editing. Regarding where to post messages, I prefer them on my talk page, but others are different. There's no rule. SlimVirgin (talk) 16:29, July 11, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Being paid

The Oxford English Dictionary was done by volunteers. Matt Stan 22:01, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Your clarifications

Thanks for the notes on my talkpage. I don't really have the time to read lengthy self-justifications, Gordon. I don't like the use of the 3RR noticeboard by editors in disputes. It doesn't help those involved build the right atmosphere. I have to say, neither does "scoring" the participants in a debate. That just ratchets up the tension. I daresay you do mean well, and I know that you have made a lot of effort to try to do things the "Wikipedia way", but I think you should seek to be constructive. I know that you consider SlimVirgin's edits to support your views, and that you are demonstrating that in this particular way, but you must consider whether doing it really will help the work on the article. The same is true of very long comments. Concision in making your points is always going to bring better rewards!

As for reverting on the whole, yes, I did admonish Duckecho on that score. The problem with revert warring is that it becomes the issue, rather than the thing that one is contending over. It reduces the force of his contention if he can be cast as a malefactor. The same is true for you, Gordon. Yes, if you make good edits, you need not go past three reverts. You are welcome to write to me on my talkpage or by email and ask for support. I don't have a vested interest in Terri Schiavo, although of course I'm pro-science and that inclines me not to share your views. But if you are making well-sourced NPOV edits, I'll support that, you can count on it. My judgement of whether you are doing that is, of course, personal though, although I do try to be fair.

Once more, I also recommend to you that you put your talents to work on other articles too. You're good at churning out words and there are many subjects begging to be written about. Happy editing! -- Grace Note


[edit] RFC on SlimVirgin

I have filed a request for comment on SlimVirgin. You can visit the page by going here. FuelWagon 22:16, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Gordon, please don't change the format of the RfC page. They're supposed to be laid out in a particular way. It's best just to leave it as it is. Cheers, SlimVirgin (talk) 10:24, July 15, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo & Polish Wikipedia

Hmmmm, in some point you have right. But text was generaly produced by Alx, because I have not so much time (finishing my MSc final work). Regards. I also sign my drawings with full name. At Polish Wiki we generaly use nicks, on my Polish WikiUserSite there are also those informations. Thanks for other your advices. Best regards. -PioM EN DE PL 22:02, 18 July 2005 (UTC)

You're welcome. Best regards and take care,--GordonWattsDotCom 00:22, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work

Vote - I am tiring of mediation, and hope we fix the problem soon: This may work'

  • Generic Updates Message to other participants: I have imitated Uncle Ed's Q & A method and tried to augment it, and I have declared a tentative (minor) success on the first of seven questions I've presented, thanks to teamwork of many of you in the past, some named in that question. Most of all of other six "Vote on these" items are valid concerns, shared by all, even if we don't agree to the answers. So, I'm asking you all to review and vote on the lingering issues. Also, Wagon has suggested we get both guidelines and examples (role model was the term he used). We all know the rules, but I found one example of a controversial topic that simply shared the facts in a cold, dry method: The Slavery article neither supports nor opposes slavery: It is "just the facts." Thus, I hope the answers I gave to the questions I proposed were correct and just the facts, without an appearance of POV. "Have faith in me," I say (imitating Uncle Ed's similar claim), and I haven't failed yet -the one time I tried: In the http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Talk:Abortion and http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Abortion, I brought peace, so I expect my method will work here too. So, get on over to The Mediation Voting Center, and vote, for Gordon's sake: I have voted, and so can you.--GordonWattsDotCom 04:56, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
Slow down, Gordon. You're tired because you're wearing yourself out. too many issues at once. I think we need to take it a little slow until we get our bearings. If we can get an intro that everyone says "yes" to, then I think all the rest will be no problemo. FuelWagon 05:16, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
I'm with FW. Breathe, Brother. ;-) BTW, thx for the heads up.--ghost 15:33, 19 July 2005 (UTC)
What coincidence you replied now; I just got online and replied to FW at his page in one short paragraph, too.--GordonWattsDotCom 15:38, 19 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Shiavo intro

Gordon, your recent edits to the Terri Shiavo explode the article by inserting a number of opinions of individuals who never saw Terri. I'm asking you to revert them. FuelWagon 22:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ta bu shi da yu

He/she is not a big fish... I think the FAQ might be a good idea :-) Ta bu shi da yu 04:03, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] check this out

i actyually have qa dot com...  www.gabrielsimon.com

please tell me what you think :)

testing one - two - three - I'm trying to make a table like you did above -
by indenting or something ... I answer you on your wiki user 
page--GordonWattsDotCom 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks back to you

Gordon, I appreciate your note to me today. I regret if my earlier editing and posts sounded combative -- it was not my intent. The Wiki-environment makes it easy to get off on the wrong foot with somebody. I fall into the habit of making edits/deletes/reverts with one line explanations and forego discussion until there is disagreement, especially if I have a development history with a given article. And sometimes I slip and make "smart ass" comments. However, I am sure our next "editing encounter" will be with more understanding on my part. :-) Regards, Jim Ellis 16:22, August 5, 2005 (UTC)