Krakauer getting defensive?

[statler & waldorf]

The rate the body metabolizes alcohol was claimed to be 0.015/hr, at least that was the figure used about 30 years ago. Also, the individual response to varying BAC levels. I have seen a BAC of 0.102, falling down drunk, comparable to card carrying sterno drinker at 0.50+. Practice, practice, practice.

 

[PlayerRep]

PR and 75 are great entertainment. But I agree with Everett that their stances on this are embarrassing to our supporters everywhere. They don't seem to understand that people can observe the same set of information and come to varying conclusions.

My concern has shifted to what the NCAA will do if it's found that the guilty verdict from the U court was overturned improperly? Will we be sanctioned again if JJ was participating in games when he should've been expelled?

Nope. Every prosecutor who looked at all of the evidence concluded that there was no probable cause, and thus no crime. The NCAA will have zero to do with the JJ/UM matter. The NCAA never looked at sexual assault or criminal stuff in their investigation. I hope the MT Higher Education report is eventually made public. It will show how bad the Dean's investigation and proceeding was (just as the federal judge concluded), how the UM had no right or ability to apply the lower standard after-the-fact, and how much potential liability UM had (and probably still has) for it's very flawed process.

It wasn't a ruling on what constitutes rape, but a ruling on how sure the university court has to be that a rape occurred. They couldn't start a trial and then change that policy, but they could use the DOE policy for any pending trials, regardless of when the crime was committed.

No, UM (or any university) could not use the DOE policy without adopting it first. The federal judge essentially ruled that in his order. The Due Process clause applies to public universities, at least to some extent. I don't think a good lawyer could even argue with a straight fact that the DOE Dear Colleague Letter automatically changed the standard, nor that a university could change and adopt the lower standard after an incident had occurred and the proceeding had been done. Sorry gg, it just plain doesn't work that way. Many universities delayed adopted the lower standard for several years, and even adopted an in-between standard.

 

[UMGriz75]

The rate the body metabolizes alcohol was claimed to be 0.015/hr, at least that was the figure used about 30 years ago. Also, the individual response to varying BAC levels. I have seen a BAC of 0.102, falling down drunk, comparable to card carrying sterno drinker at 0.50+. Practice, practice, practice.

One of my friends from the Pharmacy School, with PhDs in both Neurochemistry and Neurophysiology, mentioned to me 20 years ago that the Pharmacy School used to have a Spring Fling in one of the Pharmacy Labs, for seniors. It may have been part of a course, I no longer recall and he is deceased. But, he would borrow the County's Intoxylizer, and in the lab they would have a keg or two of beer. And games involving mental acuity with physical responses, with scores, as well as the standard DUI tests. Students could measure their own intoxication levels as measured by the Intoxilyzer, their personal feelings, and also measure against the game scores.

He reported that at 0.1, which was the then-standard for impairment, most students did not feel or test impaired, but that some would quite obviously become impaired at that level. At higher levels, he said it was interesting to note just how much alcohol could be ingested without showing clinical impairment.

He also noted there was almost no correlation between physical characteristics and levels necessary to produce impairment, except that women generally were impaired more quickly than men, and that smaller women most quickly. As to 0.1 as the "measure," he said there was little evidence that "most" people with that level were impaired by objective medical standards.

 

[UMGriz75]

They couldn't start a trial and then change that policy, but they could use the DOE policy for any pending trials, regardless of when the crime was committed.

Is that your legal opinion?

 

[PlayerRep]

They couldn't start a trial and then change that policy, but they could use the DOE policy for any pending trials, regardless of when the crime was committed.

Is that your legal opinion?

This was the federal judge's view of the "process" and "behavior" of university officials. My reading of quote is that "process" refers at least in part to the use of the lower standard not yet adopted by UM. In the memo/opinion written by the MT Higher Ed lawyers, she apparently concluded that UM had to re-do the proceeding using the higher standard that was on the books at the time of the incident and to re-do the proceeding in a fair matter. The Book also mentions that Higher Ed ordered the higher standard that was on the books to be used. When this occurred, the books of UM still had the higher standard in its policies/procedures, I believe.

"... the process applied to Plaintiff Doe and the behavior of University officials offends the Court's sense of fundamental fairness and appears to fall short of the minimal morale obligation of any tribunal to respect the rights and dignity of the accused." This was a huge rebuke by the federal judge, whom was put up for appointment by Sen. Baucus and I believe
is a democrat.

 

[argh!]

You don't have any idea what you are discussing.

ha! the niaaa would beg to differ, given how much $ they've given me over the years. maybe you know something they don't?

 

[argh!]

The rate the body metabolizes alcohol was claimed to be 0.015/hr, at least that was the figure used about 30 years ago. Also, the individual response to varying BAC levels. I have seen a BAC of 0.102, falling down drunk, comparable to card carrying sterno drinker at 0.50+. Practice, practice, practice.

One of my friends from the Pharmacy School, with PhDs in both Neurochemistry and Neurophysiology, mentioned to me 20 years ago that the Pharmacy School used to have a Spring Fling in one of the Pharmacy Labs, for seniors. It may have been part of a course, I no longer recall and he is deceased. But, he would borrow the County's Intoxylizer, and in the lab they would have a keg or two of beer. And games involving mental acuity with physical responses, with scores, as well as the standard DUI tests. Students could measure their own intoxication levels as measured by the Intoxilyzer, their personal feelings, and also measure against the game scores.

He reported that at 0.1, which was the then-standard for impairment, most students did not feel or test impaired, but that some would quite obviously become impaired at that level. At higher levels, he said it was interesting to note just how much alcohol could be ingested without showing clinical impairment.

He also noted there was almost no correlation between physical characteristics and levels necessary to produce impairment, except that women generally were impaired more quickly than men, and that smaller women most quickly. As to 0.1 as the "measure," he said there was little evidence that "most" people with that level were impaired by objective medical standards.

was that the fat man? i'm pretty sure his phds were in pharmacology and neuroscience/neuroendocrinology. i knew him well. too well. hell, i probably saved his life a dozen times. a tragic case, but professionally that man was unreliable.

 

[argh!]

The rate the body metabolizes alcohol was claimed to be 0.015/hr, at least that was the figure used about 30 years ago. Also, the individual response to varying BAC levels. I have seen a BAC of 0.102, falling down drunk, comparable to card carrying sterno drinker at 0.50+. Practice, practice, practice.

One of my friends from the Pharmacy School, with PhDs in both Neurochemistry and Neurophysiology, mentioned to me 20 years ago that the Pharmacy School used to have a Spring Fling in one of the Pharmacy Labs, for seniors. It may have been part of a course, I no longer recall and he is deceased. But, he would borrow the County's Intoxylizer, and in the lab they would have a keg or two of beer. And games involving mental acuity with physical responses, with scores, as well as the standard DUI tests. Students could measure their own intoxication levels as measured by the Intoxilyzer, their personal feelings, and also measure against the game scores.

He reported that at 0.1, which was the then-standard for impairment, most students did not feel or test impaired, but that some would quite obviously become impaired at that level. At higher levels, he said it was interesting to note just how much alcohol could be ingested without showing clinical impairment.

He also noted there was almost no correlation between physical characteristics and levels necessary to produce impairment, except that women generally were impaired more quickly than men, and that smaller women most quickly. As to 0.1 as the "measure," he said there was little evidence that "most" people with that level were impaired by objective medical standards.

i just have to quote this again. oh, the irony. i had actually harbored what i thought was a reasonable doubt as to whether you entirely lacked credibility as a "reporter", but now... gwen florio, move over, um75 is in town!

 

[GrizLA]

Geezuz! You people need to let this shit go. The guy is selling books. The newspaper is selling ad space, egriz is waiting for football season....all depend upon the public and this is killing it.

 

[UMGriz75]

was that the fat man? i'm pretty sure his phds were in pharmacology and neuroscience/neuroendocrinology. i knew him well. too well. hell, i probably saved his life a dozen times. a tragic case, but professionally that man was unreliable.

i just have to quote this again. oh, the irony. i had actually harbored what i thought was a reasonable doubt as to whether you entirely lacked credibility as a "reporter", but now... gwen florio, move over, um75 is in town!

Are you a professional troll, or just an amateur with nothing else to do?

I doubt you "harbored" anything. As to credibility, well, he did have two PhD's. Yes, he died as the result of diabetes, if you are somehow claiming vindication about yet another of your bizarre rants. I know, the finest thing you can do is go on a football forum and insult a dead Pharmacy professor because it makes you feel so knowledgeable and you can be condescending at the same time. You prove it over and over again: You are just one classy act, aren't you? Jeez, you just saved his life countless times. That gives you a passport, doesn't it?

Why don't you explain again how the Missoulian was able to ascertain the person's BAC two hours before it was measured and judge both her medical and legal ability to consent?

THAT was a good one, and was the best measure of your credibility, yet, and perhaps time to hang it up.

 

[grizcountry420]

no way this makes it to 17 pages...

 

[argh!]

Are you a professional troll, or just an amateur with nothing else to do?

first of all, you are obviously grasping. as for the fat man, again, his case was tragic, because diabetes took more than his life, and way too early. he did, however, choose to ignore reality regarding the situation.

you really are a pathetic old man, aren't you? this might make 17 pages, if you continue.

 

[statler & waldorf]

Using a breathalyzer in such a "empirical" manner has been done by various law enforcement agencies for many years. The point being some teen on his/her first alcohol experience will be effected much more than a 50 year old, 35 year hard core Drinking Specialist First Class, of the same stature, on a drop for drop basis. Over the years, I, and many of you, have done extensive field studies in this area. Fill in the blanks with who, what, when, where, and why, and you have a story, a case, or a book(fiction, non-fiction, or Krak style). Count yourselves lucky.

 

[UMGriz75]

You don't have any idea what you are discussing.

ha! the niaaa would beg to differ, given how much $ they've given me over the years. maybe you know something they don't?

As a test subject?

 

[argh!]

You don't have any idea what you are discussing.

ha! the niaaa would beg to differ, given how much $ they've given me over the years. maybe you know something they don't?

As a test subject?

ha ha! yes! witty of you!

 

[UMGriz75]

Are you a professional troll, or just an amateur with nothing else to do?

again, his case was tragic. yours, however, is tragically pathetic.

ask greenie what's up. he'll figure it out.

Are you just bizarre, lonely, or deranged?

Please explain, again, your defense of the Missoulian's claim that a BAC can be used to determine a BAC two hours earlier and make the specific claim that the drunk person was, then, legally and medically unable to give consent?

Does that amazing claim come from a large brain or someone who just prattles on about dead pharmacy professors on a football forum hoping it gives him an odd credibility because he now realizes he can't defend his own claims about the BAC which are so ridiculous as to actually rise to the level of "tragically pathetic."

 

[UMGriz75]

Are you a professional troll, or just an amateur with nothing else to do?

first of all, you are obviously grasping. as for the fat man, again, his case was tragic, because diabetes took more than his life, and way too early. he did, however, choose to ignore reality regarding the situation.

you really are a pathetic old man, aren't you? this might make 17 pages, if you continue.

As usual, you launch onto a thread, get your facts totally screwed up, make multiple ridiculous statements, then try to change the subject by launching multiple ad hominem attacks, including, in a remarkable display of bad taste, on dead people. God it must be pathetic to be you and feel that way.

 

[GrizLA]

Is there a meth epidemic in Missoula? is this obsessive compulsive disorder month? Never has so much been written about so little.

 

[tnt]

I know that real facts and actual information is unacceptable on egriz, but 75 and the pharmacy professor are correct (mostly). You can look at the BAC charts here:

http://adcaps.wsu.edu/alcohol101/blood-alcohol-chart/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;


(you can also look backwards on the charts making arghs point)

 

[statler & waldorf]

first of all, you are obviously grasping. as for the fat man, again, his case was tragic, because diabetes took more than his life, and way too early. he did, however, choose to ignore reality regarding the situation.......

you really are a pathetic old man, aren't you?

Why don't you just come out and say his name? Run him and his family through the mud. How low can you get. Is there NOTHING you won't do score points, make a point, or fluff up your exploits? Lawyer or not, you're a classless TROLL as proven by your last few sentences. There are some things BEYOND posting, but you just don't give a sh*t! YOU are the pathetic one. Hope they BAN you.