In article ,
Ronald Huttner wrote:
> In article
> ,
> Danny wrote:
>
> > On Aug 28, 10:15 am, Wagtail wrote:
> > > Ronald Huttner wrote:
> > > > In article <48b5e...@news.x-privat.org>, Wagtail
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >> Ronald Huttner wrote:
> > > >>> In article <48b5d...@news.x-privat.org>, Wagtail
> > > >>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
> > > >>>>> In article <48b55b6...@news.x-privat.org>, Wagtail
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> In article <48b54fb...@news.x-privat.org>, Wagtail
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>> Ronald Huttner wrote:
> > > >>>>>>>>> In article ,
> > > >>>>>>>>> Sylvia Else wrote:
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This item caught my attention
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>http://news.smh.com.au/world/bangladeshi-boy-born-with-two-heads
> > > >>>>>>>>>>-2
> > > >>>>>>>>>>008
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 08
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 27
> > > >>>>>>>>>> -4
> > > >>>>>>>>>> 3wz
> > > >>>>>>>>>> .html
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> because it talks about a boy being born with two heads. It
> > > >>>>>>>>>> struck me
> > > >>>>>>>>>> as
> > > >>>>>>>>>> odd, because the article is describing a case of coinjoined
> > > >>>>>>>>>> twins,
> > > >>>>>>>>>> and
> > > >>>>>>>>>> thus would usually be considered to be talking about two
> > > >>>>>>>>>> people.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> This got me wondering how the law defines a person. There was
> > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> case
> > > >>>>>>>>>> a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> few years back in which a court in QLD was asked for a
> > > >>>>>>>>>> declaration
> > > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> an operation to separate conjoined twins was lawful even
> > > >>>>>>>>>> though
> > > >>>>>>>>>> it
> > > >>>>>>>>>> would
> > > >>>>>>>>>> inevitably result in the death of one of them.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>>http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/qld/QSC/2001
> > > >>>>>>>>>>/1
> > > >>>>>>>>>>74.
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ht
> > > >>>>>>>>>> ml
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> It would have been legally much simpler if the view could be
> > > >>>>>>>>>> taken
> > > >>>>>>>>>> that
> > > >>>>>>>>>> there was only one person involved, on whom life saving
> > > >>>>>>>>>> surgery
> > > >>>>>>>>>> was
> > > >>>>>>>>>> needed.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> So how does the law define a person?
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>> Sylvia.
> > > >>>>>>>>> There is an article in the Modern Law Review which discusses
> > > >>>>>>>>> this
> > > >>>>>>>>> very
> > > >>>>>>>>> question.
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>> See:-
> > >
> > > >>>>>>>>>http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118872430/abstract?CRE
> > > >>>>>>>>>TR
> > > >>>>>>>>>Y=1
> > > >>>>>>>>> &S
> > > >>>>>>>>> R
> > > >>>>>>>>> ETRY=0
> > > >>>>>>>> An article in the MLR! Holy mackerel!
> > > >>>>>>> It is directly relevant to the question raised by Sylvia, so what
> > > >>>>>>> precisely is your problem ?
> > > >>>>>> What does it say?
> > >
> > > >>>>>> If someone asks a religious question, it is hardly satisfactory to
> > > >>>>>> answer by referring them generally to the Bible, or the Koran, or
> > > >>>>>> some
> > > >>>>>> other religious text. Is it?
> > > >>>>> If you were genuinely interested in finding out what the article
> > > >>>>> says
> > > >>>>> you could of course try obtaining a copy for yourself.
> > > >>>> Astounding! You make a wholly unsubstantiated claim, and you demand
> > > >>>> that people fall over themselves to substantiate it.
> > >
> > > >>>> It is your clear obligation to post the information, or a reference
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>> it. Copies of that article are not free.
> > >
> > > >>>>> That is precisely
> > > >>>>> what I am endeavouring to do at this very moment, via a request I
> > > >>>>> have
> > > >>>>> sent off to the Law-Lib Discussion List in the USA. (That List has
> > > >>>>> Members from all over the world).
> > > >>>> Good for you. Do you usually make claims, and subsequently try to
> > > >>>> verify them?
> > >
> > > >>>>> The abstract of the article is all
> > > >>>>> that I have seen to date, but that abstract makes it abundantly
> > > >>>>> clear
> > > >>>>> that the article is directly relevant to the question asked by
> > > >>>>> Sylvia.
> > > >>>> So, it's clear to you, and that is good enough, is it?
> > > >>>> Listen up, dummy! It's no-where good enough.
> > >
> > > >>>>> In any event, my posting was a reply to Sylvia not to you.
> > > >>>> It was a post on a public international newsgroup. Your reply was
> > > >>>> to
> > > >>>> the world.
> > >
> > > >>>>> it will be a
> > > >>>>> matter for her whether she wishes to try to get hold of the
> > > >>>>> article.
> > > >>>>> If
> > > >>>>> and when I receive a copy of the article in response to my request,
> > > >>>>> I
> > > >>>>> shall be more than happy to supply a copy to anyone who wants to
> > > >>>>> read
> > > >>>>> it.
> > > >>>> Good for you.
> > >
> > > >>>>> And your purported analogy to a religious question is in no way a
> > > >>>>> valid
> > > >>>>> analogy at all.
> > > >>>> Because you say so?
> > >
> > > >>>> From reading your posts, my conclusion, based on the evidence, is
> > > >>>> that
> > > >>>> you are somewhat disturbed and unstable emotionally, and a right
> > > >>>> buffoon
> > > >>>> legally.
> > > >>> So why do you waste so much of your time (a) reading and (b)
> > > >>> responding
> > > >>> at length to my postings ? Have you nothing better to do with your
> > > >>> time
> > > >>> ?
> > > >> Noblesse oblige. It takes me but little time.
> > >
> > > > But if I am as big a buffoon as you assert, then you must be an
> > > > infinitely bigger buffoon to read anything at all that I post - let
> > > > alone devote any time at all to responding to it.
> > >
> > > Karl Marx and Adolf Hitler were also buffoons, but that does not stop me
> > > reading "Das Kapital" or "Mein Kampf", let alone responding to them.
> > >
> > > "Noblesse oblige" is hardly an adequate answer as to why you do so.
> > >
> > > I'll be the judge of that. You will never grasp the notion, but what
> > > you imagine other people should do or think does not become reality
> > > merely by you imagining it.
> > >
> > > > And in any event je ne comprend pas votre francais.
> > >
> > > There are a great many things that you do not understand and will never
> > > understand, my little buffoon.- Hide quoted text -
> > >
> > > - Show quoted text -
> >
> > Wagtail by name and wagtail by action. Ignore him..he's a troll
> > wagging ALL your tails.
>
> I now know this. I did some research on him on Google. Discovered Horace
> Wachope's delightful piece a couple of years ago on the Wagtail. I agree
> with absolutely everything that Horace wrote about him. The Wagtail is
> true to his pseudonym and email address. A true bird-brain in every
> respect. And a nasty, vicious, unhelpful one too.
Corrigendum: I see, now, after re-reading the item, that Horace Wachope
was in fact referring to Phil Alloson rather than to the Wagtail. On
that particular issue, therefore, I retract my comments. Everything else
that I wrote about Wagtail, however, stands. |