If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#321
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 11:06:21 -0800, gcmschemist wrote: > > > > > C.H. wrote: > > > >> http://www.dvr.de/download/aaba3fa8-...c374c02148.pdf > > > > There, that wasn't so tough. > > And I said that it was exactly where? I had the idea you found it difficult because it took you 2-3 rounds of posting to finally generate what I originally requested. I never claimed you said it was tough. I decided it must be tough because you couldn't seem to figure it out the very first time. > >> Either you know drunk driving is dangerous and still complain about > >> efforts to decrease this danger or you think drunk driving is > >> harmless. Which one is it going to be? > > > > False choice. There are more than two choices - and this again reeks of > > the "have you stopped beating your wife" sort of arguments. > > Your nose needs a smell adjustment. Maybe your own smell has offset it > somewhat? Are you this rude all the time, or just in usenet, where you can hide behind your monitor? > > If you cannot rationally discuss an issue, then maybe you should > > refrain. > > The question is valid. Why don't you simply answer it instead of trying to > weasel out? The question is *not* valid, because there are more choices than the ones you offered. False choice, or false dichotomies, are logic errors. When you can figure out how to be rational, please feel free to have a discussion. > >> So what other indicators do you see? Other than lab testing the person > >> for hours? > > > > I'm sure you could come up with a bunch of tests that could be > > administered right at the roadside, that would only take a few minutes. > > Good, qualitative testing. > > I am interested to hear what you have in mind. 'I am sure you could...' > does not cut it. I'm allowing you to use your brain. There are tests that can be administered, by non-scientists, that can, in a few minutes, roughly determine someone's level of intoxication. These can be administered right at the side of the road, and often are. Think a little bit, and you'll know exactly what I mean. > >> > What if the person has measurable BAC but is not drunk? > > >> How does the person know whether they have a measurable BAC but are not > >> drunk or whether they are just too drunk to know they are drunk? > > > > Doesn't really answer the question, does it? > > It gives a reason why you can't simply say, 'ok, you think you are not > drunk, so you can drive.' An invalid reason. A measurable BAC does not imply loss of reasoning, nor the inability to safely operate a motor vehicle. > Most people who are totally blastered, think > they can still drive. And many do. You don't go directly from one glass of wine with dinner to "totally blastered" (whatever "blastered" means - I assume some kind of German idiom for "really intoxicated.") Anyway, one glass of wine will cause measureable BAC, but not necessarily loss of ability to adequately operate a motor vehicle. > >> I went through the first two pages and didn't find any link to the > > study. > > > > Hence the term "secondary references." If you are going to reply, at > > least try and reading what I write before typing. > > Then deliver the primary reference. Secondary references by sources on the > web are about as accurate as tarot. If you don't like them, then find the thing yourself. I don't know Swedish, so I can't get at the primary reference, and the translation to English is obviously not available in e-copy. The fact that all those different folks used the same numbers strongly implies that a real document backs them up. And these aren't "web sources" but links to newspaper articles. Before, you believed what was in the papers. Now you all of a sudden don't? How odd. > >> If the study exists you should have no problem posting the URL. > > > > The study is quoted by quite a number of different sources, including > > newspapers and .edu addresses. In addition, I have read the study > > myself. If you want to dig up an e-copy, be my guest. > > I have seen so much bull**** at .edu adresses that I mostly discount what > I find there. Secondary references are worthless. You can be as dismissive as you want, it matters not at all. Like any other person with a closed mind and open mouth, facts don't seem to penetrate whatever preconceived notions exist. > > If the multiple secondary references aren't good enough, fine by me. > > What was that about "hair in the soup," again? > > I delivered the primary reference you asked for. A .pdf in German. Yeah, it was useful. </sarcasm> But you finally did deliver. Oddly, the original thing you delivered was supposed to be OK enough for me... Talk about a hypocrite. > >> I did find a reference, though, that says that the 'hangover' in > >> reality probably is leftover alcohol in the system: > >> > >> http://autonet.ca/EdmontonDrive/Stor...m?StoryID=8931 > > > > An opinion piece. Are you now picking and choosing the references that > > suit your preconceptions? > > So your secondary references are okay, but mine isn't although it concerns > the same subject? Amusing. It's not the same subject. It's not based on research, and has nothing to do with the Swedish research. If secondary references are good enough, then they are good enough. If not, then they are not. Pick a position and stick to it. > >> > At what BAC does this assessment become impossible? > >> > >> Early enough to make people think that they are still on the safe > > side. > > > > That is not quantitative. > > That's all that matters. No, I want a quantitative number. At what BAC does self-assessment become impossible? > >> > Ah, but "driving drunk" is a moving target. In fact, the definition > >> > of "drunk" seems to shift with time and location. Hardly the absolut > >> > thing you present it to be. > >> > >> Absolut will make you drunk in fairly short order. :-) > > > > You caught my pun. Nice work. > > It was a good one for a change. Uh, for a change? I don't habitually make puns. You have an answer for everything, don't you? > >> And where did the definition of 'drunk' shift? > > > > In different states, DUI is defined differently, and has been higher in > > the past in most every state. > > Smoking has been thought harmless in the past. So has drunk driving for > many years. Doesn't mean either is. You asked for when the definition shifted, and I gave it. The reply you just made doesn't have anything to do with anything. > >> > You are claiming that "influence" begins at 0.03%. > >> > >> Yes, the influence begins at .03% or even earlier. > > > > Your opinion. If you wish to parse every word, I suggest you start at > > the beginning, and not flail around post after post trying to make a > > weak argument stronger. > > Read the material I have shown you. It clearly says that impairment begins > at .03% or even earlier. Until you find a halfway credible study saying > something different my argument is supported while yours isn't. "For some individuals." You are reading the part you like, and ignoring the part you don't. Your own document supports my position! > Or do you think it is acceptable to go through a red light 3 seconds after > it turned red, just because there was a bozo who went through the same > light 4 seconds after red? "Have you stopped beating your wife?" > Every driver has to drive as best they can to minimize danger on the road. > Driving drunk is not conductive to driving as best one can, so it is to be > avoided. I completely agree. But enacting legislation that outlaws sub-impairment level BAC is just more LCD nanny-statism. > > The bottom line is this: your line of logic leads us to a situation > > where a person can have one (1) drink with dinner, and be subject to > > very strict and punative DUI laws, without any proof of actual > > impairment for the individual in question. While this may not affect > > you in any way, that is not a rationale for increased stringence within > > the law. > > There are lots of laws, that don't take into account the individual in > question. And there are a lot of laws that don't. > > > The law needs to be consistent, not dependent on the whim of some cop or > judge. Uh, do you have the slightest clue what a judge does? And right now, we are at the whim of cops on who gets pulled over and tested, and who doesn't. > What would you base your impairment rules on? BAC is bad enough because > people have no way of checking whether they are below the limit and the > BAC may even climb after getting in the car as more alcohol is drawn from > your stomach, so with drinking you can never be quite sure whether you are > still legal or not. There are external devices that can constantly measure BAC. Or, use the common sense of applying the knowledge I already have on ethanol uptake and rate of catabolism. > But a roadside test would be much worse. Imagine the cop doesn't like your > nose and just writes 'failed' on the test and you lose your license. Now > imagine you are sober and the same thing happens. That's the way they used > to do it in Russia or China. I don't want that to happen over here. Gosh, maybe there might be some device that you could, oh, exhale into that would show that you are below a legal limit? Naw, it'd never work. The current trend toward lower and lower limits is approaching a situation where you catch folks who are not impaired, and yet still have measurable BAC. Under your suggestion of "8 hours from bottle to throttle," I could drink a beer, and drive three hours later, have a measurable BAC and be what - jailed? stiffly fined? not because I am impaired, but because I exceeded some arbitrary standard. Sort of like current speed limit laws. > > Explicitly, I am very much against impaired driving (no matter how that > > impairment occurs), but at the same time, very low absolute limits to > > BAC don't make sense, because not every reacts to alcohol the same. > > There needs to be a legal limit and it needs to be about where in the > average person impairment starts. There is not such animal as the "average person." And even your own reference states that the 0.03 standard you promote is not an average result. > > And using LCD thinking is how we got into the no-training, no-education > > nanny-statism driving situation we find ourselves in currently. HAND, > > With that argument you can get rid of just about any law. To manage a > civilized society there has to be a certain amount of laws. That there are > too many laws in many areas is correct Which only implies that the laws that impact you negatively should be done away with, right? > but that doesn't mean that in > other areas, specifically areas, where self assessment and self control > are already weakened by alcohol, relaxing the law would work. I don't recall ever advocating for relaxed standards. Ever-stricter standards are what I am objecting to. Yet another instance of "have you stopped beating your wife." Knock it off. E.P. |
Ads |
#322
|
|||
|
|||
Bernd Felsche wrote: > "C.H." > writes: > > >I have a problem with bull****ters and liars like you. > > You simply appear to have a problem with _everybody_. Boy, that's the truth. Does anyone ever agree with this guy? I don't think I've found but one or two usenet postings where anyone has defended his POV. And notice that he never misses an opportunity to show how tough he is. At every mention of physical confrontation, there he is, saying how he'd handle himself. I'm beginning to get the idea it's merely another usenet troller, bored at work and getting paid to screw around on the net. I wonder if his employer would approve of his on-line activities? Hmmmm. HAND, E.P. |
#323
|
|||
|
|||
Bernd Felsche wrote: > "C.H." > writes: > > >I have a problem with bull****ters and liars like you. > > You simply appear to have a problem with _everybody_. Boy, that's the truth. Does anyone ever agree with this guy? I don't think I've found but one or two usenet postings where anyone has defended his POV. And notice that he never misses an opportunity to show how tough he is. At every mention of physical confrontation, there he is, saying how he'd handle himself. I'm beginning to get the idea it's merely another usenet troller, bored at work and getting paid to screw around on the net. I wonder if his employer would approve of his on-line activities? Hmmmm. HAND, E.P. |
#324
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:40:47 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote: >Olaf Gustafson > wrote: >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: >> > "C.H." > wrote: >> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote: >> >> > "C.H." > wrote: >> >> >> Olaf Gustafson wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk. >> >> > >> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-] >> >> >> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks. >> > >> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name? >> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation... >> > >> >O L A F ! >> > >> >One of the results of having too much to drink... >> >> Fool > >So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds >like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much >to drink? No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it because the notion is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either. Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is. Adios, fool. |
#325
|
|||
|
|||
On Fri, 14 Jan 2005 11:40:47 -0500, "Scott M. Kozel"
> wrote: >Olaf Gustafson > wrote: >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: >> > "C.H." > wrote: >> >> Scott M. Kozel wrote: >> >> > "C.H." > wrote: >> >> >> Olaf Gustafson wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now? >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk. >> >> > >> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-] >> >> >> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks. >> > >> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name? >> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation... >> > >> >O L A F ! >> > >> >One of the results of having too much to drink... >> >> Fool > >So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds >like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much >to drink? No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it because the notion is utterly ridiculous. I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either. Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is. Adios, fool. |
#326
|
|||
|
|||
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: > > Olaf Gustafson > wrote: > >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: > >> > "C.H." > wrote: > >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: > >> >> > "C.H." > wrote: > >> >> >> Olaf Gustafson > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk. > >> >> > > >> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-] > >> >> > >> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks. > >> > > >> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name? > >> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation... > >> > > >> >O L A F ! > >> > > >> >One of the results of having too much to drink... > >> > >> Fool > > > >So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds > >like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much > >to drink? > > No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it > because the notion is utterly ridiculous. > > I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either. > Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is. Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all over this newsgroup, speaks for itself. Are you sure you're not drunk right now? -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com |
#327
|
|||
|
|||
Olaf Gustafson > wrote:
> > "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: > > Olaf Gustafson > wrote: > >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: > >> > "C.H." > wrote: > >> >> "Scott M. Kozel" > wrote: > >> >> > "C.H." > wrote: > >> >> >> Olaf Gustafson > wrote: > >> >> >> > >> >> >> > Are you sure you're not drunk right now? > >> >> >> > >> >> >> Yes. However, I am by no means sure that you are not drunk. > >> >> > > >> >> > Chris, are you sure that you are not arguing with a bunch of drunks? :-] > >> >> > >> >> By now I am pretty sure I _am_ arguing with a bunch of drunks. > >> > > >> >I've been wondering about this "Olaf"... is that a screen name? > >> >It sounds like the sound of violent regurgitation... > >> > > >> >O L A F ! > >> > > >> >One of the results of having too much to drink... > >> > >> Fool > > > >So you're not disagreeing that it is that a screen name, that sounds > >like the sound of violent regurgitation, resulting from having too much > >to drink? > > No, I'm not going to dignify it by formally disagreeing with it > because the notion is utterly ridiculous. > > I'm not going to waste my time trying to make fun of your name either. > Your idiocy does a good enough job of making fun of yourself as it is. Uh-huh. Your barrages of postarrhea, which you have been spraying all over this newsgroup, speaks for itself. Are you sure you're not drunk right now? -- Scott M. Kozel Highway and Transportation History Websites Virginia/Maryland/Washington, D.C. http://www.roadstothefuture.com Philadelphia and Delaware Valley http://www.pennways.com |
#328
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Mike Z. Helm > wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:18:23 -0800, "C.H." > > >> >>> But it IS okay to drink a few. >> >>Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this. > >Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the >road after a few drinks. Probably would work, but caffeine is more readily available. To most people, anyway :-). |
#329
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Mike Z. Helm > wrote: >On Thu, 13 Jan 2005 18:18:23 -0800, "C.H." > > >> >>> But it IS okay to drink a few. >> >>Unfortunately yes - and a lot of people die because of this. > >Maybe they should do some cocaine to keep them alert when they hit the >road after a few drinks. Probably would work, but caffeine is more readily available. To most people, anyway :-). |
#330
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Bernd Felsche > wrote: >"C.H." > writes: > >>Apparently some people need a flamewar to prove themselves. I just >>read the last 10 messages and there is nothing but insults, flames >>and attempts to prove you guys are better than I. > >And there was me thinking you don't read what you post. >Apologies. > >>I don't see any point in continuing. > >You want to stop digging just because your spade's melting in the >magma? If he keeps digging from where he is, he's going to be posting from your neck of the woods soon enough. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
528i vs 530i vs 540i USA Versions | FSJ | BMW | 37 | January 16th 05 06:38 PM |
MFFY Driver Get His Come-Uppance | Dave Head | Driving | 25 | December 25th 04 06:07 AM |
Speeding: the fundamental cause of MFFY | Daniel W. Rouse Jr. | Driving | 82 | December 23rd 04 01:10 AM |
There I was, Driving in the Right Lane... | Dave Head | Driving | 110 | December 18th 04 02:07 AM |