Re: What Ted wanted?
|March 16 2004, 9:05 PM |
Would they go on the record and say that Ted didn't...
|March 16 2004, 9:46 PM |
...*love* John? Would they? I don't think they would, it's just too low. Instead, they question Ted's judgement, and Ted's abilities, they essentially depreciate him to the point of incapable senility; that he couldn't make decisions and that he was completely controlled by JHW. How could people who love someone go to these depths? If I felt that someone I loved was rejecting me because they were senile (and felt someone was controlling them), I would just let it go; I would never depreciate them over something like that, I would be happy with the time I spent with them.
I think that Ted geniunely loved his son. I don't think any respectible person would say otherwise.
Re: Would they go on the record and say that Ted didn't...
|March 16 2004, 10:02 PM |
I agree completely that Ted loved his son. He trusted him very much. But, after 3 strokes and the half a day surgery in california, I must say that Ted's faculties were NOT completely in order. He was, to some extent, senile. He had suffered great side effects from the strokes. I just think he was a little taken advantage of in the end, when he was unable to realize what was going on. In between the dialysis at his house each day, he slept and he was confused upon wakening. I just think it turned out bad for a lot of reasons. I don't think anyone could question whether Ted loved his children, or them him, just what was best to do after his death. Why not an updated will stating cryonics? It only takes a call to one of the many attorneys there (one living in Ted's neighborhood) to legally change the will. Why wasn't it done? I won't ever understand it.
Yeah, a will change would've been good.
|March 16 2004, 10:22 PM |
Certainly no one would be talking about it right now if a will change was done. Although conspiracy people will always find a way to say something; heck, if Ted's signature is on the DOG, people are already claiming that JHW would've forged it! How's that for unreasonable?
What I think is important is whether or not Ted loved his son. What I think is important is whether or not Ted would be happy with what is son did (and I'm sorry, I take people who depreciate Ted words with a grain of salt). Why can't we be positive here? Why must we go "Ted was senile and John was a con"?
Depreciate them both won't we...
Re: Yeah, a will change would've been good.
|March 16 2004, 11:20 PM |
Well, I just happen to have known them both, and in the end, yes ~ Ted was not altogether thinking correctly. Senile seems to harsh, but he was not himself and would often forget what he was saying in mid sentence. JH....well, he always was a sneak. The longer the nurses and staff were around and the more info they gathered, next thing you know, they were fired! As far as the forgery goes, John Henry was well known to forge his dad's signature and at times, even bragged about how good it was. That will follow him even now.....
Re: Re: Yeah, a will change would've been good.
|March 16 2004, 11:22 PM |
I don't think the question is whether TW loved his son (and other children)...I think everyone in the family and friends know without a doubt that he did. He was a loving man. A big teddy bear. Very proud of his kids, regardless of how others view them.
|March 17 2004, 11:38 AM |
Correcto moondo, thekid09 speaks the truth. Thanks to JHW fraudulant activities as to the signing his father's signature. All sports memorabilia with Ted's signature has turn a poor price, simply because JHW was well known and even bragged about how he could sign his fathers name. Whenever you look at a baseball or a bat or a photograph with TW's signature on it, you have to stop and wonder is it real or is it JHW.
I guess we'll never know
|March 17 2004, 7:34 AM |
However, I just read an interesting article on elder abuse. Let me outline the classic scenario:
A person enters the elderly person's life. Slowly they befriend them and win their confidence, assuming more and more responsibilities. First through simple acts, eventually controlling the financial and legal responsibilities as well, including obtaining power of attorney over all their affairs. They also isolate the elderly person from lifelong family and friends, further controlling them by being their sole contact with the outside world.
Now, I don't doubt that TW loved JH and JH loved him. But as a family member this is exactly the scenario I witnessed. I have talked with family members who experienced the same thing, and I have been fortunate to meet some of TW's oldest and dearest friends and they also had the same experience.
Everyone was cut-off from contact with TW.
I feel horrible that as his body aged and failed him he had no access to the people who also loved him and could provide some comfort.
I have a cousin who knew JH at about age 14. He claims JH said his aim in life was to get everything from his father, and he succeeded.
If there is a God, I think he's looking out for TW after all.
Re: I guess we'll never know
|March 17 2004, 11:47 AM |
Twrelated, Let's see if you are truly a family member. Are you familiar with the JHW/Cat occurrence when JHW was a teen? And if so, you do not need to tell me the details just tell me where it occurred. Relax, I am on your side.
|March 17 2004, 11:59 AM |
I don't know where it happened but there was some fire involved that left a scar. M told me the story.
Re: Family lore
|March 17 2004, 12:57 PM |
You got it Twrelated. You are the real deal. It is quite a story and shows how wicked our subject matter is.
Re: Re: Family lore
|March 17 2004, 12:59 PM |
Let's just keep the story to ourselves. No need in telling these idiots the story, they would try to somehow justify JHW actions.
Is there a reason you guys are so hostile to Alcor?
|March 17 2004, 1:29 PM |
What exactly have they done to you? If you don't agree with the freezing of TW, why do you blame them? Blame the person who brought TW to them to be frozen if you must, but they're just a service provider. Or do you just think cryonics is "yucky" and hate it for that reason?
Not hostle to Alcor
|March 17 2004, 1:42 PM |
Except that they refuse to release information to family members. Confidentiality is a screen to hide behind. Why not show if it was his wish?
Angry at who put him there?
Yes, we don't believe it was his wish, it was forced on him. If Alcor has evidence otherwise it should be made available.
Think cryonics is "yucky"? Not it all, I'm actually enjoying learning about it here.
Cryonics doesn't bother me. My family member held in a place that was not his wish does.
Imagine the situation reversed, if your family didn't follow your wishes for cryopreservation, but one member stood up after the fact and fought for what they know to be true and right, at great personal cost with absolutely nothing to gain?
Not a screen to hide behind
|March 17 2004, 2:09 PM |
You think this is some grand conspiracy on their part? Publicity YES/NO is in the membership contract. The person who signs up has total control over this. I've checked YES on mine. If a person checks NO, then Alcor would be in breach of the member contract if they said anything about them. Do you understand that? They would have a lot of current members pissed off at them if they were shown to disregard their own membership contract and the rest of the current members would be wondering (rightly) if they could trust them in the future after pulling a stunt like that.
UAGA as sword and shield
|March 17 2004, 2:31 PM |
Then Alcor should drop their claims of complying with the Uniform Anatomicla Gift Act, because the provision of the member contracts is in direct conflict with A.R.S. 36-847.
That is a conflict, but
|March 17 2004, 2:42 PM |
In that case, who should Alcor's first duty be to - their own members or outsiders? Personally I want them looking out for me first.
my preference ...
|March 17 2004, 2:54 PM |
would be a company that can look out for me AND comply with the law. Remaining on the correct side of the law is desirable, especially for companies viewed by many with strong suspicions.
Re: my preference ...
|March 17 2004, 3:11 PM |
But ARE you a member of Alcor? It's OUR privacy on the line here, not yours. It's just a theoretical argument for you, but it's a very real one for us.