pugwash Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) 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. Your are correct, if it impairs your senses you are technically drunk. but was he 'affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behaviour', i.e The Oxford Dictionary definition of the adjective 'drunk'? The FIM slant on this as described by SCB above would mean he was, a BSF member who spoke to him says he wasn't. The Ox Dic defo of the adjective sober is 'not affected by alcohol, not drunk'. I would take this as meaning that the subject has taken alcohol but is not affected by it. Edited March 30, 2015 by pugwash 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Your are correct, if it impairs your senses you are technically drunk. but was he 'affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behaviour', i.e The Oxford Dictionary definition of the adjective 'drunk'? A BSF member who spoke to him says he wasn't. The Ox Dic defo of the adjective sober is 'not affected by alcohol, not drunk'. I would take this as meaning that the subject has taken alcohol but is not affected by it. Still digging? It doesn't matter what you take it as. It's clear. Not affected by alcohol. The moment you consume ANY alcohol you are affected. That is what is does. It's really not a very difficult concept to understand. What I will admit, and it is no doubt where Starman is coming from, is that most of us tend to use the word 'drunk' to refer to people we can visibly see are impaired by alcohol.. i.e. staggering around etc. Indeed before this thread, that is how I would have defined the word too, so I would have been wrong. The difference is, I learned. Edited March 30, 2015 by BWitcher 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Your are correct, if it impairs your senses you are technically drunk. but was he 'affected by alcohol to the extent of losing control of one's faculties or behaviour', i.e The Oxford Dictionary definition of the adjective 'drunk'? The FIM slant on this as described by SCB above would mean he was, a BSF member who spoke to him says he wasn't. The Ox Dic defo of the adjective sober is 'not affected by alcohol, not drunk'. I would take this as meaning that the subject has taken alcohol but is not affected by it. But again you are talking degrees of being drunk. After only 1 drink you are by and large in control of your faculties but even after that control is diminished, albeit only ever so slightly but diminished all the same. Why do you think some jobs have a zero limit. 1 pint would probably not affect your driving ability but it would hinder you if you had to land a Boeing 747. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Still digging? Your digging, I'm trolling. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Your digging, I'm trolling. Fair enough Shall we leave it there then? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommelier Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I did question it. I'm not going to look back because I remember it at the time. 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". I totally agree with you SCB, nobody knows how much alcohol he had consumed, we are all guessing. he's got his ban so lets see how he conducts himself if & when he makes a return. Me personally i can't wait, riders with his tallent are few and far between Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Fair enough Shall we leave it there then? There you are we've agreed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sommelier Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 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. All you ever seem to go on about on this thread is Starman!!! 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 All you ever seem to go on about on this thread is Starman!!! That's probably because there would be nothing to discuss on the thread, if it wasn't for Starman trolling with his made up fantasies and refusal to comprehend the English language. As and when we hear more from the FIM and Ward then there will be more to discuss. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pugwash Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 All you ever seem to go on about on this thread is Starman!!! Don't be so pedantic. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
weatherwatcher Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 It does not matter one iota how much he had to drink, if he was over the stated limit set by the FIM, then he was over the limit to be riding a speedway bike. It didn't matter if he was rolling around dead pan drunk, the fact is he was over the limit no matter what. I just hope he sits back and just lets the ban go by and dosen't fight the case, because he could end up getting worse that he has got now, so come the end of his ban, I hope we see a far more sensible Darcy Ward than the one we have been used to for the past I don't know how many seasons. Because if he dosen't change his ways his speedway career will be over very quickly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arson fire Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I cant recall starman ever being wrong on any thread ever Even when proven he's to cowardly to admit it Edited March 30, 2015 by Arson fire Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I did no such thing. What I have said is "lets assume" And thats exactly what you doing.. I cant recall starman ever being wrong on any thread ever Even when proven he's to cowardly to admit it Oh i can be wrong, but not often.. I also put up fair posts, but as usual, people read what the want to read and dicect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) And thats exactly what you doing.. Oh i can be wrong, but not often.. I also put up fair posts, but as usual, people read what the want to read and dicect. I think I see where you are coming from. SCB, myself and others have 'assumed' the language used on this forum is English and have based the definition of 'drunk' on that particular language. Little did we know you have invented your own language, with your own meaning to words. So silly of us. Once Jerran Hart gets out of prison I'm going to ask him to tweet Lewis Bridger, see what his definition is. Any ideas when he'll be getting out Starman? Edited March 30, 2015 by BWitcher Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think I see where you are coming from. Im assuming, you know the definition or the word DRUNK.. maybe, posibly ?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gavan Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 I think I see where you are coming from. SCB, myself and others have 'assumed' the language used on this forum is English and have based the definition of 'drunk' on that particular language. Little did we know you have invented your own language, with your own meaning to words. So silly of us. Once Jerran Hart gets out of prison I'm going to ask him to tweet Lewis Bridger, see what his definition is. Any ideas when he'll be getting out On one post he admits he can sometimes be wrong But i bet he doesnt answer you on the Jerran Hart thing lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BWitcher Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Im assuming, you know the definition or the word DRUNK.. maybe, posibly ?? Again, not sure what language you are speaking here. I think it's quite clear I know the definition of the word 'drunk' in the English language, which I think is what you are asking/assuming? It has been explained in some detail to you on the thread and the evidence provided to back that up, but you persist in claiming something else. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Starman2006 Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) I think it's quite clear I know the definition of the word 'drunk' Oh good, pleased to hear that.. Edited March 30, 2015 by Starman2006 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blazeaway Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Oh i can be wrong, but not often.. I also put up fair posts, but as usual, people read what the want to read and dicect. Oh stop it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldace Posted March 30, 2015 Report Share Posted March 30, 2015 Oh stop it! Starman, Sidney and the drop a cog wally. Jesus you couldn't find three dumber characters if you tried and we get them all for free on here., 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.