I do agree with you. I do not think he should be banned, because as far as I know, he has not broken any forum rules. However, I do reserve the right to use the twit filter if I decide to. Even the best argument is lost when it is presented in a hurtful, disparaging manner and when the tone is so repulsive that the reader stops reading then the intent of the message is never received. His conspiracy theory is just that, a theory, nothing more. That doesn't mean his theory is not accurate, but that there is no justification or cause that gives credence to that theory (yet). Regardless, it was presented in such a rude, disgusting, and reprehensible manner that the message is lost in all the bunk. I still standby my comments that it is easy to assume a conspiracy or bad ruling when looking at only the public notice of the ruling and not having privy to the full information. If anyone choses to research or question the ruling further, they can attempt to see the actual documents via the freedom of information act, or they can band together and present a request.

HOWEVER, NOTHING should be done without the consent of the family. It is possible that even if the ruling is wrong (or believed wrong by the family), that they do not wish to pursue it further for whatever reason and in this case I think that decision belongs to the family members. They may chose to pursue it further on their own later or never at all. They may agree with and support a group pursuing an investigation, but then they may not and it may be something that would actually cause them more pain. They may have information we don't have.

We do not know if the family wishes to challenge the ruling, if they could afford to challenge it, or if they wish to let it lay where it is. Someone who is close to them may wish at some time to present the possibility of the support of those who knew Drew in helping with a challenge, but that should be presented as an option by someone who knows the family well. Then, whatever the family wants is what should happen. That may mean nothing at all should happen. Disparaging comments on this or any forum about members who have contributed so much to the VFP community should be left out of it.

I am going to leave it at that.




>>Drew's family can't afford the legal aid to challenge that ruling by powerful corporate state interests. They have most likely been denied insurance claims.
>
>Any way of finding if this is true ?
>
>BTW you went completely out of control in *that* post. I tought that you are doing it purposely to rise case attention level, but why ugly like that??
>Why use so harsh/insulting wording about dead person. People got disguisted and wld not even try to get yr point.
>Just imagine his wife reading this thread. That is why I agree on deleting it.
>
>Unlike menu others here, I believe your intentions are good
>but that tongue of yours ...