Darcy Ward

[pugwash]

 

I have no need.

 

If you're not adult enough to accept when you are wrong, that is your issue.

 

Personally I would rather politely point out when someone is wrong and give an explanation as to why, than simply be wrong and call people names when it's pointed out I am wrong.

 

Your response speaks volumes.

 

Point proven.

[uk_martin]

It's not a stage remark. A tribunal (be it sport or employment) has to be balance of probabilities. Eg would the average person believe it to be true. Only in a court of law does it have to be beyond reasonable doubt.

 

Civil vs criminal law. Check it out....

 

Here's another wobbler to enter into the equation - which country's legal system do the FIM follow? We in Britain may be used to the British system (innocent til proven guilty and all that) but you may be surprised at how few other countries follow this principle. Even in "civilised" western European countries some adopt the guilty until proven innocent principle. (check out "Roman Law")

 

So there's another shocker...the whole world doesn't have to conform to BSF subscribers' expectations...

[BWitcher]

 

Point proven.

 

Yes, it is. I've proved that I have the intelligence to put across an argument, something which you sadly have failed to do, instead resorting to trolling in defence of a troll.

[Gavan]

People call it anti Poole but i post on Ipswich, Somerset, Poole, Swindon, Lakeside , Edinburgh, Kings Lynn and even recently the Newcastle threads.

 

I chat and debate with a large number of supporters from those clubs.

 

However (and sorry for the decent Poole fans you know who you are) , i have yet to witness a club with as many pedantic, mind numbing, trolling, argumentative and downright foolish fans as Poole.

 

the club has just a complete clown in Starman which i does think tarnish some peoples views. I take people as i find them and people like foreverblue and chris4gillan and even skidder are worth debating with.

[pugwash]

 

Yes, it is. I've proved that I have the intelligence to put across an argument, something which you sadly have failed to do, instead resorting to trolling in defence of a troll.

Where have i put across an argument? I have made NO Comments whatsoever as to the parameters of the word 'drunk' which appears to be in debate here

I have only drawn your attention to NPD which from your response you seem to be conversant with.

[BWitcher]

Where have i put across an argument? I have made NO Comments whatsoever as to the parameters of the word 'drunk' which appears to be in debate here

I have only drawn your attention to NPD which from your response you seem to be conversant with.

 

So you've interjected into a thread to make a personal insult.. even worse.

 

As regards your NPD claims, having the ability to understand and articulate why you are correct in an argument doesn't mean you suffer from 'NPD'. It simply means you're an adult capable of a literate level of communication.

 

What we can draw from this though is you choose to abuse the literate, correct person and not the incorrect abusive person.

 

That says all we need to know about your good self.

[pugwash]

 

So you've interjected into a thread to make a personal insult.. even worse.

 

As regards your NPD claims, having the ability to understand and articulate why you are correct in an argument doesn't mean you suffer from 'NPD'. It simply means you're an adult capable of a literate level of communication.

 

What we can draw from this though is you choose to abuse the literate, correct person and not the incorrect abusive person.

 

That says all we need to know about your good self.

Keep digging.

[BWitcher]

Keep digging.

 

Keep trolling.

[pugwash]

 

 

If you're not happy, go take it up with Merriam-Webster dictionary who say:-

 

Full Definition of DRUNK

1

a : having the faculties impaired by alcohol

b : having a level of alcohol in the blood that exceeds a maximum prescribed by law <legally drunk>

2

: dominated by an intense feeling <drunk with rage>

3

: relating to, caused by, or characterized by intoxication : drunken <drunk driving>

 

 

 

Or you could have equally used the the Oxford dictionarys definition to support Starmans opinion that he wasn't drunk:

 

http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/drunk

 

Just depends on which side of the fence you want to sit.

 

 

 

Incorrect.

 

The Oxford dictionary confirms it as well.

 

Any intake of alcohol impairs you.

 

Unless you want to argue against science?

You have put forward a dictionary defininition, fair comment.

Pirate Nick has quite resonably put forward an alternative dictionary definition ( Affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one’s faculties or behaviour:) which shows that there is some middle ground here but you have unbendingly refuted that definition as it dosn't suit your criteria.

Smacked of NPD to me, hence my comment.

Edited March 30, 2015 by pugwash

[SCB]

But surely you can see that the second definition fits too? the reason the FIM have a rule that says you can only have 0.1 mg/litre (or whatever the limit/units are) is because that is the amount that controls ones faculties or behaviours. They didn't just pick a random figure from nowhere.

 

Regardless, lets assume the only definition of drunk is, "drunk so much you can barely stand up or recall your name" - how do we know Darcy was not in that state? Starman goes off on one every time I say Darcy was drunk but he (not I) know how "drunk" he was. He may have been barely drunk but equally he may have been totally blotto. But starman continues to defend and argue this.

[SteveLyric2]

But surely you can see that the second definition fits too? the reason the FIM have a rule that says you can only have 0.1 mg/litre (or whatever the limit/units are) is because that is the amount that controls ones faculties or behaviours. They didn't just pick a random figure from nowhere.

 

Regardless, lets assume the only definition of drunk is, "drunk so much you can barely stand up or recall your name" - how do we know Darcy was not in that state? Starman goes off on one every time I say Darcy was drunk but he (not I) know how "drunk" he was. He may have been barely drunk but equally he may have been totally blotto. But starman continues to defend and argue this.

As does Philip Rising who was there - but you don't challenge him do you?

[Starman2006]

 

 

 

 

You have put forward a dictionary defininition, fair comment.

Pirate Nick has quite resonably put forward an alternative dictionary definition ( Affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one’s faculties or behaviour:) which shows that there is some middle ground here but you have unbendingly refuted that definition as it dosn't suit your criteria.

Smacked of NPD to me, hence my comment.

Your forgetting one thing. He's a Poole rider..

As does Philip Rising who was there - but you don't challenge him do you?

Not likely to do that is he..

[BWitcher]

 

 

 

 

You have put forward a dictionary defininition, fair comment.

Pirate Nick has quite resonably put forward an alternative dictionary definition ( Affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one’s faculties or behaviour:) which shows that there is some middle ground here but you have unbendingly refuted that definition as it dosn't suit your criteria.

Smacked of NPD to me, hence my comment.

 

You are wrong, because as SCB states, the second definition doesn't put forward a second opinion. It is the same thing. Once you consume alcohol, ANY amount of alchohol, you are impaired and by definition drunk. What can be debated is the level at which you are impaired and therefore the levels to which you are drunk.. that wasn't the debate.

Your forgetting one thing. He's a Poole rider..

 

 

Ah yes, when the English language was devised, they built in special definitions solely for Poole riders.

[Starman2006]

 

 

Regardless, lets assume the only definition of drunk is, "drunk so much you can barely stand up or recall your name" - how do we know Darcy was not in that state? Starman goes off on one every time I say Darcy was drunk but he (not I) know how "drunk" he was. He may have been barely drunk but equally he may have been totally blotto. But starman continues to defend and argue this.

Now your admitting that DRUNK is what you've now stated.. Darcy was KNOWHERE near, that state. Stop deflecting your short comings on to me..You are just fighting the argument for arguments sake.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Starman2006

[Guest]

A renowned quote perhaps to be considered is this:

 

"I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." Made by Jimmy Hoffa.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa

Edited March 30, 2015 by Guest

[Starman2006]

People call it anti Poole but i post on Ipswich, Somerset, Poole, Swindon, Lakeside , Edinburgh, Kings Lynn and even recently the Newcastle threads.

 

I chat and debate with a large number of supporters from those clubs.

 

However (and sorry for the decent Poole fans you know who you are) , i have yet to witness a club with as many pedantic, mind numbing, trolling, argumentative and downright foolish fans as Poole.

 

the club has just a complete clown in Starman which i does think tarnish some peoples views. I take people as i find them and people like foreverblue and chris4gillan and even skidder are worth debating with.

Nice to be popular, isn't it...

 

Keep trolling.

Keep sturring..

[oldace]

Now your admitting that DRUNK is what you've now stated.. Darcy was KNOWHERE near, that state. Stop deflecting your short comings on to me..You are just fighting the argument for arguments sake.

 

 

It is everyone's right to be stupid but you are abusing that right.

 

What is it that you can't understand.

 

By nature alcohol impairs your senses (I exclude you from that for obvious reasons). That state is popularly called being drunk.

 

Now to what degree you are drunk depends on the amount consumed. 1 pint = not very drunk, 10 pints equal very drunk. No alcohol = sober. You can't have alcohol in your system, not even a small amount and be sober

 

Are you with me so far. So at the time of the test in Riga Darcy had alcohol in his system. It matters not, for the purpose of this debate, how much alcohol, just that some was present.

Edited March 30, 2015 by Oldace

[BWitcher]

Now your admitting that DRUNK is what you've now stated.. Darcy was KNOWHERE near, that state. Stop deflecting your short comings on to me..You are just fighting the argument for arguments sake.

 

Once again your inability to read and process what is typed lets you down.

Edited March 30, 2015 by BWitcher

[iris123]

A renowned quote perhaps to be considered is this:

 

"I may have many faults, but being wrong ain't one of them." Made by Jimmy Hoffa.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Hoffa

Is this aimed at Middlo + Darcy?

[SCB]

As does Philip Rising who was there - but you don't challenge him do you?

I did question it. I'm not going to look back because I remember it at the time.

 

Now your admitting that DRUNK is what you've now stated.. Darcy was KNOWHERE near, that state. Stop deflecting your short comings on to me..You are just fighting the argument for arguments sake.

I did no such thing. What I have said is "lets assume", if you prefer that can mean let pretend. It basically means, ignoring reality. Lets assume that you are correct (and thats a huge leap in reality) that drunk can only mean unable to stand up. How do you know that Darcy was not in that state? You don't know he wasn't, I don't know he was. Neither of us know. Neither of us can comment.

 

 

Drunk using the link Pirate Nick used to defend you says, "Affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one’s faculties or behaviour:" - now the reason the FIM have a limit is because they believe that anyone over that limit is "losing control of ones faculties or behaviours" (ie, they're dangerous). they beleive anyone over that limit is, "drunk".