"Cary Kittrell" <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu> wrote in message
news:apjqpb$2s8$1 at oasis.ccit.arizona.edu...
> In article <3dbd0ad6.4448366 at newsgroups.bellsouth.net>
JDay123 at BellSouth.net (Jd) writes:
> <cary at afone.as.arizona.edu (Cary Kittrell) wrote:
> <No. If we did all those things to the letter we would be out of
> <postion with reguards to saving pagans from their ungodly ways and
> <self-destructive lifestyles Especialy those under a Jeze-spell.
>>>> Well, good for you -- in three years of prodding, John Knight
> hasn't had the balls to come out and take a stand, as you've
> just done. You're easily the better man.
>>>> -- cary
Matthew 7:6 "Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye
your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn
again and rend you."
Nobody wants to convert you "liberals". The only reason for responding to
your absurd "thoughts" is to set the record straight. Whether or not
liberals and muds and other non-Israelites ever, ever comprehend the first
thing about the Holy Bible is utterly irrelevant to the 2 billion Christians
of the world.
With White Europeans having spent centuries and billions of dollars in a
failed attempt to convert 900 million niggers in Africa to Christianity,
only to fail, there's no need to repeat the failure, is there?
Instead, why don't you try to critique the following?
ps--this is from http://christianparty.net/dwi.htm
The Source of the DWI [driving while intoxicated] laws
Not one single American scientists, nor mathematician, nor even student,
teacher, politician, nor bureaucrat, has even taken the time to critique the
methodology used to justify the "DWI" [read: driving while intoxicated]
laws. If even one competent mathematicain had, government and "we the
people" would have noted the serious methodological flaws on which these
fraudulent laws are based and done something to PREVENT that draconian laws
The flaws are so glaring and so obvious and so egregious that it should be
an embarassment to each and every honest, concerned American citizen.
There are three studies which are referenced when governments attempt to
justify these draconian DWI laws:
The Borkenstein study.
The "H.P. Krüger" study.
The Perrine study.
All three studies contain serious methodological flaws similar if not
identical to the following:
SAMPLING DEMOGRAPHICS: "Field operations were conducted on Friday and
Saturday nights during two two-hour periods at separate sites, at one site
between 10 PM and midnight, and at the other between 1 AM and 3 AM. Data
from the 96NRS is representative only of locations and periods when drinking
and driving is most prevalent (i.e., not all times or roadways in the 48
ACCIDENT RISK BIAS: The methodology used to assess accident risk
under-represents the expected accident rates of each BAC class.
DISQUALIFIED CONTROL GROUP: Key drivers from the control group were
excluded from the results, even though including them may have almost
doubled the number of drivers with a BAC > 0.
CONTROL GROUP BIAS: No reason was given for removing another 85 drivers
from the control group, who may have been another 14% of the drivers with a
BAC > 0.
REPORT BIAS: To determine who was the cause of the accident, they all
relied on police who have been trained that drinking alcohol automatically
LOGICAL ERROR: All three almost ignored the most important fact about
their study group: the SAFEST drivers were drivers with a BAC > 0 and <
0.8, which even their own data showed to be 89.8% of all drivers with a BAC
DROWSY DRIVING: None of these studies took into account "drowsy driving",
which the NHTSA estimates could account for 11% of night time accidents.
This alone could cause even more accidents than are attributed to drivers
with a BAC between .18 to .20 and .20 and above, combined.
SEX BIAS: None of the studies considered the sex of the driver, even though
numerous statistics show that women drivers are 3 times more likely than men
drivers and women pilots are four times more likely than men pilots, to
cause an accident.
ADVOCACY GROUP: With such obvious advocacy work, the composition of this
control group could easily have been manipulated in ways that weren't even
It's impossible to know what effect drinking and driving has on accident
rates if a complete data set for ALL times of the day and night, all driving
conditions, and all other pertinent factors, is not known. By excluding
drivers who may have been "intoxicated" at 7 am in the morning (by their
definition of the word "intoxicated"), it's impossible to detect accidents
that may have been alcohol related at other times of the day. By excluding
these other potential "alcohol related accidents", it's mathematically
impossible to get a complete and unbiased result for the sample they
studied. This failure alone disqualifies any opinion that might be issued
by scientists who conduct such studies.
For example, if the FAA is correct and it takes up to three hours to
metabolize just one ounce of alcohol, then there could be numerous drivers
who had just four drinks close to midnight on a week night, got up and drove
on the highways at 7 AM on the way to work, only 7 hours later, but would
still be "intoxicated" by their definition, because they could still have up
to two ounces of alcohol in their system. Some drivers could still have as
many as two ounces of alcohol in their system at this time of the morning,
and if alcohol causes accidents, then before any determination can be made
about how many accidents are caused by drinking drivers on weekends and week
nights, we also need to know how many accidents were caused by such drivers
at 7 AM in the morning.
ACCIDENT RISK BIAS
Kruger's study estimated that the "accident risk" of drivers with a BAC
between.02 and .04 should have resulted in 30 fatal accidents, which is 9
accidents less than their actual number of 21 accidents, indicating that the
odds ratio for such drivers was 0.7 (or that they were 30% less likely than
the average to cause an accident). This is consistent with the "Borkenstein
dip" reported in the US. But drivers with this BAC level were 1.71% of the
control group, so they should have been 1.71% of the 1,968 drivers in
accidents (or 34) included in this study. The fact that only 21 of the
drivers in this BAC class were involved in the accidents indicates that
their odds ratio was actually .62, meaning that they were 38% less likely
than average to cause an accident.
In other words, where we would expect the odds ratio for drivers in the .04
to .06 class to be .93 (where they would be 7% less likely than average to
cause an accident), Kruger predicted that their odds ratio would be 1.08
(where they would be 8% MORE likely to cause an accident).
DISQUALIFIED CONTROL GROUP
Kruger reports that "Of those asked for a breath sample, 9128 (94.8%)
agreed". BUT ONLY 6.3% OF THE DRIVERS HAD A BAC > 0! It's far more
significant that 5.2% of nighttime drivers would refuse to take a breath
sample requested by the police than it is that 6.3% had a BAC > 0. But this
point was entirely ignored. The opportunity existed to determine exactly
what percentage of those who refused to take the test were actually
intoxicated, but this opportunity was missed, thus it's now impossible to
know with certainty what percentage of them had a BAC > 0. But it's
entirely possible that all of them did, which would have almost doubled the
percentage of drivers in the control group with a BAC > 0, from 6.3% to
11.5%. In addition, most likely due to CONTROL GROUP BIAS, another 85
drivers were omitted from the control group with no explanation. It's
entirely possible that they too had a BAC > 0, which would have increased
the percent of drivers in the control group with a BAC > 0 by 14%. This
would mean that the percent of drivers in the control group with a BAC > 0
could actually have been 12.4% rather than only 6.3%, which completely
invalidates the control group.
The use of such a disqualified control group can never be justified. The
only way to salvage anything from this "study" is to make some wild
assumptions about the BAC levels of those who refused the breath test. What
they SHOULD have done is a min and a max using the known data, and making
several assumptions about the distribution of the BAC levels. For example,
if it's assumed that the distribution of the unknown 5.2% and the unknown
0.9% was similar to the known distribution of the 6.3%, then drivers with a
BAC between 0 and 0.02 would be 50% less likely to have an accident than a
non-drinking driver, rather than only 4% less likely as reported by Kruger.
Similarly, drivers with BAC between 0.02 and .04 would be 64% rather than
30% less likely to have an accident, and drivers with BAC between .04 and
.06 would be 46% less likely rather than 5% more likely to.
It doesn't make any sense, though, that drinking one drink and having a BAC
between 0.02 and 0.04 would decrease your likelihood of having an accident
by 64%, though. This might put such drivers into Mario Andretti's class,
and it's not likely that drinking alcohol is THAT beneficial. Thus a more
reasonable assumption would be that those who refused the test tended to be
the drivers with the higher BAC levels, including those with a BAC > .20.
It should be noted that the use of this biased control group resulted in the
prediction that only 2 drivers with a BAC > .20 should have been involved in
fatal accidents, compared to the actual number of accidents of 64. This is
what caused the scientists to state that such drivers had 62 more accidents
than they should have, making them 31 times more dangerous than non-drinking
drivers. But if only 62 or 12.4% of these 501 drivers who refused the test
had a BAC > .20, then they would NOT have been over-represented in fatal
accidents at all.