But Oien misdialed, and reached Aquarius Arnolds, a student at Indiana University Purdue University-Indianapolis, instead. "I didn't know who it is so I just decided to answer the phone and see. I couldn't understand anything the caller was saying," she said.
Arnolds said her first instinct was to hang up, but that something kept her on the line. "It seemed like he was in distress, so I just said, you know, do you need help, and he belted out 'Yes,' and that was the only thing I could understand," she said. With only the man's phone number to go off of, Arnolds called 911 and helped dispatchers get help to Oien.
"When the police got there, they had to kick down his door and they couldn't understand anything he was saying. He couldn't talk and he was in constant seizures" said Oien's girlfriend, Sherry Proctor. "I think that I would have come home and found him dead, or in worst shape than what he was."
She called Arnolds Oien's guardian angel, giving family members time to travel to Indiana to see him for what will likely be the last time. "His brothers came from Minnesota, Florida and Georgia, and I don't think they would have ever seen him alive again had it not been for her," Proctor said.
Oien is now in a nursing home, where Arnolds has visited him several times. "He was able to wave, blow a kiss to me and hold my hand," she said. Proctor said she's just thankful Oien found a caring person on the other end of his early-morning call for help. "He dialed one phone number and it just happened to be the right person," she said. "I thank God for that."
With news video.
11 comments:
Aquaaaariuuusss!!!!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBdkeQqhmMs
(sorry)
"I thank God for that."
Well, there really isn't much else you could think to thank him in that situation. I don't understand why she even bothers.
Anyway, I usually don't answer calls from unfamiliar numbers, because the odds are it is just another telemarketer. I wonder if I've doomed some poor fellow by doing that.
lol. typical insolitus
Indeed. I am always wondering about the strangest things. I guess not many who read this started to wonder whether the same has almost happened to them.
<span>a prejudiced person who is intolerant of any opinions differing from his own
<span>wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn</span></span>
<span>bigotry - The rigid intolerance of ideas or persons seen as different.
<span>www.publiceye.org/glossary/glossary_big.html</span></span>
<span>bigotry - intolerance toward those of different creeds or religious affiliations
<span>gw820lodge.tripod.com/education/MDictionary.htm</span></span>
I choose 3 random definition from the same word from google, i think it is something to think about.
So you're calling me a bigot. Would you mind showing me where I have revealed myself to be so intolerant?
When ever any transcendant world view is expressed even in a passing remark, you are very quick to attack so in a passive aggressive manner.
How is that intolerant?
The fact we are discussing this in this particular thread must mean you found also my initial comment here bigoted. Apparently according to the girlfriend's beliefs, God somehow made it so that Mr Oien phoned Ms Arnolds - did he tamper with the free will of one or both of them? But if she gives God the credit from that, then she must also accept that God has made/allowed it so that her boyfriend has terminal cancer, he suffers a terrible seizure and nearly dies before having the chance to say goodbye to his loved ones. Thanking someone who would do that seems grotesque to me. Stating my differing opinion does not make me intolerant, I tolerate her silly beliefs quite well.
PS. I would like to point out that for example in the story about the Australian millionaire couple who banned the workers on the construction site of their mansion from eating meat at least partly because of bad karma, I never said anything about the religious aspect of the thing.
Because it is good friday and this editorial is related, i hope you would forgive me and let me add this slightly long article. I could not track down the original source which is a few years old .It is from the sunday telegraph and have been assured the writer is a secularist (at least when he wrote this anyway) in his thinking. Also due to the length of the article ive had to split it into more then one posts
"but what is true at this time in our history is that we are moving into uncharted territory. since the french revolution, many influential intellectuals have rejected religion. but it is only now that religious ideas are ceasing to underpin general morality. because these ideas have prevailed for so long, people tend to assume that the morality which goes with them is somehow obvious and commonsensical and will continue. “love thy neighbor as thy self” is widely believed to be a moral imperative which everyone can accept and try to follow without religious faith as if it were a belief which came naturally to man. no moral doctrine comes naturally. as the derivation of the word “doctrine” implies it has to be taught. it can only be taught if enough people understand the theories on which it rests and have the means of instilling their consequences into the popular mind. we have entered a period in which this is no longer so and we are beginning to see the results.
<p>
</p><p>
most of those who fight to stop hunts killing foxes would think nothing of having abortions. if members of the animal liberation front had been in jerusalem on that first good friday they would have been far too worried about the fate of the donkey, on which christ entered jerusalem, to mind that he was being crucified before their eyes. with this loss of a truly human morality comes paradoxically a greater emphasis on the importance of human gratification. as human beings no longer believe that they have a unique standing in the order of divine creation, they turn inwards. the great modern crime is to prevent people doing whatever it is they want to do. on the right this tends to mean complete freedom to make and sell whatever people want to buy. on the left it tends to mean giving government money to anyone who asks for it and arguing that any sexual taste or way of life is equally valid. being yourself is the thing to be. as if your self was automatically interesting and good. the word love is used just as much as it ever was, but it means something else. for a christian the measure of love is what one is willing to give up for it. for the post-christian love is the most exciting state of the ego. the social consequences are more greed, more crime, more family breakdown, and more violence and an extreme restlessness which makes contentment almost as outdated a word as crenalin. and although many non-believers dislike these trends just as much as christians, they are almost powerless to do anything about them. for religion has an extraordinary and unique capacity to keep sublime concepts of beauty and truth and the principals of conduct derived from them in the minds of ordinary people. without religion few know what to think and into the vacuum created for superstition, fanaticism, and pure brutishness. to all of this the atheist will answer, “you may be right about the social consequences about the loss of faith, but that is simply the pain that results from people discovering they’ve been living a lie. our duty is to develop a new way of living based on the truth” this may be an honorable position, but another possibility presents itself. it is that our moral beliefs will decay if they are cut off from their source, just as a stream will become a stagnant pool if it is no longer fed by its spring. and that this is what is happening in the west today. the injunction to “love thy neighbor” is not a statement of the obvious, it is a commandment and one which only makes sense because it flows from the first commandment, “love thy god”. we must obey it because it is true and we know it is true because of the event which this day, easter, commemorates."
</p><p>
</p><p>Enjoy the holidays everyone.
</p>
<span>"Enjoy the holidays everyone. "</span>
You too.
Post a Comment