namelesstavern.net

by **Gaazy** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 7:54 pm

Ive been reading/posting here for quite a while now, well before this new board was made. Lumpy, you never cease to amaze me on some of the utterly stupid shit you have posted over time, but this takes the cake.

Congradulations, you are a fucking idiot.

by **Ciladan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 8:00 pm

Harrison wrote:Thank God someone fucking knows what they're talking about.

And where were you with your facts? You were no better then the random "wannabe know-it-alls."

In fact, xaoshaen at least pointed out logic to enforce his position. Yours appeared to be completely conjecture.

Next time why don't you back up what you are trying to say like Martrae did and people won't think you're such a moron.

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:00 pm

Keep on thinking you are correct with your band of idiots. Public opinion is not equal to fact.

http://www.duiblog.com/

One of many you prodigal google masters seemed to have forgotten. Keep searching though.

There are way too many fucking variables that a breathalyzer just can NOT account for. That scientifically is not acceptable. Oh but of course you scientist wannabe's knew that or knew better!!! Teh googlze has shown you the way!

"hay guyz look I uses better sentences and wordses than he did, I must be the corrects!"

I am too aggrevated at reading your ignorant drivel half of the time to form a coherent sentence. Doesn't mean my facts are any less viable than someone elses.

by **Spacewoman Spiff** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:03 pm

You're aware that Alex works for the Dept. of Corrections, right? He knows what he's talking about right here.

You got pissed for someone impugning your knowledge of fish, but then turn around and did the same to someone else. It's like a big game of Ring Around the Hypocracy tonight!

So far, lead players are Harrison and myself. Who else is going to join? :boots:

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:15 pm

Ohnoz he works for the department of corrections?!?!

He must be a fucking expert on chemical analyses! Better yet, he must be the manufacturer of the intoxilyzer 5000!!

:gtfo2:

Far from it. See, for example, "The Response of the Intoxilyzer 4011AS to a Number of Possible Interfering Substances", 35(4) Journal of Forensic Sciences 797, where researchers found numerous common substances which were falsely reported by breathalyzers as alcohol -- including methyl ethyl ketone, which is used in lacquers, paint removers, cements, adhesives, celluloid and cleaning fluids. Another compound, toluene, also caused false high readings and is commonly used in paints, lacquers, varnishes and glues. A third chemical is isopropanol, commonly known as rubbing alcohol. Fumes from these chemicals can be inhaled or absorbed through the skin.

In an interesting scientific study, researchers performed tests on a professional painter who was exposed to lacquer fumes under controlled conditions. In the first test, he sprayed paint in a room for 20 minutes, wearing a protective mask; his blood and breath were then tested. Although the blood test showed no presence of alcohol, a breath machine (Intoxilyzer 5000) indicated a reading of .075% blood-alcohol concentration --very close to the legal limit of .08%. "Lacquer Fumes and the Intoxilyzer", 12 Journal of Analytical Toxicology 168.

Yet another scientific study discovered that diethyl ether, found in some plastics and automotive products, can be inhaled and detected by breathalyzers as "alcohol". "Diethyl Ether Interference with Infrared Breath Analysis", 16 Journal of Analytical Toxicology (1992). The researchers concluded that "the possibility of interference with an alcohol reading by ether or by other substances may therefore render prosecution more difficult if not impossible."

Sources posted within the quote. (Journal of Analytical Toxicology for you lazy fucks who don't read and just spout off more bullshit)

Wow I guess that "big boy" intoxilyzer 5000 isn't so accurate. Who would have thought?

by **DangerPaul** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:17 pm

That just means that company put out of a piece of shit.

ps
I didn't even read the article, I am guessing to what it says, based on the person posting it and the argument involved.

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:19 pm

That is exactly why I never want to put forth any facts.

You pricks don't even fucking read them anyways to begin with.

by **Ciladan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:24 pm

Harrison wrote:That is exactly why I never want to put forth any facts.

You pricks don't even fucking read them anyways to begin with.

Some how my question was answered here but this post was replying to someone else and the post he used to reply to me had nothing to do with what I was saying help my brain is exploding what's going on here

by **Spacewoman Spiff** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:26 pm

So when you grow up in the fishing capital of wherever the fuck, we're not allowed to question your knowledge of squid. But when a person works eight hours a day in a place that deals with breathalyzers and drunkenness and fallouts from such things, you can question his knowledge of the equipment?

How is this not hypocritical?

Jesus, at least I admit my faults.

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:29 pm

Does he calibrate the thing personally?

Does he USE the fucking thing?

Does he know the vast list of chemicals that fuck with the readings?

by **Ciladan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:30 pm

DO YOU?

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:31 pm

Hearing other people explain how something works and stories second-hand or worse does not equal actual experience with something.

I have first-hand experience with commercial fishing. Completely different...

Does he have first-hand experience with the breathalyzer or the studies conducted proving these things don't account for the variables mentioned previously?

(don't answer, I've heard enough from you. I want his reply)

by **brinstar** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:31 pm

1. who drinks lacquer, paint remover, cement, adhesives, or other cleaning fluids and then is either sober or alive enough to drive?

2. even if a guy JUST GOT DONE spraypainting a room, would he drive in such a way to arouse enough suspicion to warrant a traffic stop?

3. whatever random internet search spawned your newest contrived argument (ironic, isn't it?) cites extremely unlikely circumstances which-- though they might trip up a breathalyzer-- will cause the case to be thrown out and are therefore moot.

4. for someone who has often stated that all drunk drivers should die, you sure seem to want to defend them!

5. in cases of dispute, a blood test is also taken. let's see you google some blogs (lol) that show blood tests are wildly inaccurate too!

6. EVEN IF IT WERE THE CASE that breathalyzers err too often on the side of incrimination (WHICH IT FUCKING ISN'T), i for one would much rather have it that way than to err on the side of LETTING DRUNK DRIVERS CONTINUE TO DRIVE.

7. which of us should we trust more on this subject? a guy who went to college and works in the Justice Department and sees dozens of police reports on DUI cases every week, or a guy who dropped out of high school and digs ditches when the weather is nice enough?

8. i'd like you to google up some more "variables that can't be accounted for" please. or, alternately, you might consider simply shutting the fuck up. you don't have to come out and SAY "gee brinstar i guess i'm wrong" but please stop pretending otherwise, you're embarrassing yourself.

by **Ciladan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:36 pm

Brinstar on MSN wrote:it's like arguing with a wall upon which someone spray-painted "THIS IS NOT A WALL"

by **DangerPaul** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:41 pm

by **Aryylas** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:41 pm

That's like arguing with anyone on NT.

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:45 pm

#1 I'm not even going to address that stupidity.

#2 Random traffic stops are just that, random. In MA they have random stops for breathalyzer checks as well. Usually set up like "stations" along the roadside.

#3 All of what I said I already knew from when my Dad was falsely charged with a DUI and the ensuing case and research. The search was to cut and paste the facts you so eloquently ignored in your expertise with what you read on police reports.

#4 This has nothing to do with drunk drivers. You can fail the breathalyzer without drinking a drop of alcohol. That is my fucking point, dumbass.

#5 I never said anything about a blood test to check BAC.

#6 Oh that's real effective, "I know it's wrong often, but that's ok herr herr"

#7 My previous employment and your education in college (which I doubt included chemistry) have nothing to do with this discussion. Way to go trying to play on the strings of the ignorant masses here who would disagree with me just for the sake of doing so.

#8 I am not wrong. Do your own research and take off the rose colored sunglasses. I am not googling to futher prove you wrong, that has already proved ineffective when you don't even fucking read it anyways.

by **Ciladan** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:49 pm

*looks up at the sky*

by **Spacewoman Spiff** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:58 pm

Wow, I went away and had dinner and talked with my roommates and started feeling much less detached and bitchy. I was thinking, "gee, I was kinda mean to Finawin... maybe I should go apologize."

Then I read this. And while I'm still less detached and bitchy, I refuse to apologize for the attacks to Lumpy. This is just idiocy.

Were you assimilated by Mindia or something?

by **Harrison** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 9:59 pm

No need to apologize, you don't know me, and I don't know you...

It's not as if we hurt eachothers feelings.

by **Aryylas** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:25 pm

That was funnier than it should have been.

by **Narrock** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:39 pm

Vivalicious wrote:Wow, I went away and had dinner and talked with my roommates and started feeling much less detached and bitchy. I was thinking, "gee, I was kinda mean to Finawin... maybe I should go apologize."

Then I read this. And while I'm still less detached and bitchy, I refuse to apologize for the attacks to Lumpy. This is just idiocy.

Were you assimilated by Mindia or something?

How in God's green earth are you lumping me in with lumpy? How insulting!

by **Diabolik** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:40 pm

Mindia wrote:How in God's green earth are you lumping me in with lumpy? How insulting!

That's quite lumpy.

by **Spacewoman Spiff** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:41 pm

Goddammit Mindia, you aren't supposed to make me laugh when I'm trying to use you to insult someone!

:boots:

by **Narrock** » Thu Mar 31, 2005 10:41 pm

namelesstavern.net

A whole new meaning to shit-eating grin....

Who is online