Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

schadenfreude wrote:
The supporting evidence wasn't released to the public yet, but it was obvious what happened.

No it wasn't. It was obvious that Dunn Tweeted a photo of himself with a beer in his hand, and that there were multiple reports of him consuming multiple drinks over a period of time. It was also obvious that he was driving at speed, and that he hit a tree. None of this necessarily adds up to "Dunn was driving at speed with a blood alcohol level over the legal limit." It adds up to "Dunn was driving at speed after having consumed alcohol."

schadenfreude wrote:
I used pretty sound logic to found my assumptions about that car crash, and the logic was sound enough that I felt 99.9% certain that my assumptions would be proven correct by the coroner's office.

Well, no, you didn't use logic. Had you used logic you wouldn't have come to certain conclusion regarding a set of data that did not allow it. I suppose you could have used some sort of paraconsistent system, but that usually doesn't yield certain conclusions anyway. Certainty only follows from the toxicology report, which you didn't have access to.

schadenfreude wrote:
I've also worked with addicts for nearly 20 years. That's long enough to instinctively spot one, and in this case my instincts + logic were correct.

Wait, so now you're saying that he was an addict? What evidence do you have for that statement?

schadenfreude wrote:
If you have a substance abuse problem there's only 3 options; get clean, go to jail, or die. In the case of Dunn he chose not to get clean, he would have gone to jail for vehicular homicide if he survived the crash, but he eventually chose to die. Dunn chose to die, it was his decision, and now his friends and family have to live with it.

I very much doubt he chose to die. He chose to not get clean, and that lead to his death, but that's about the end of it.

Statistically speaking if you were to take a large sample of men in their mid 30's who tweet themselves drinking beers where pictures show they visibly look gakfaced to an experienced eye, and then crash their car at 130+MPH into a tree a half hour after closing time what % of those people would end up with a BAC >.08? Those are enough facts to piece together some odds with logic + facts, so gives us some odds. I'm going with 999 times out of 1000 the guy has a BAC>.08

Alcohol abuse includes both physical addiction to alcohol and the inability to stop drinking despite alcohol having a negative impact on your life. If a man routinely beats his wife, beats his children, and/or drives drunk when intoxicated, acts like a civilized human being when sober, but can't stop drinking the man is an alcohol addict that is not physically addicted to alcohol. Dunn was on a long documented spiral of destruction.

What a piece of trash he was.

schadenfreude wrote:

dogma wrote:

schadenfreude wrote:Have I been a bit crass about Dunn's death? Yes I will admit I have been crass. Am I going to apologize? No I'm not going to apologize.

BAC=0.196=No apologies.

The problem wasn't that you were crass, the problem was that you made crass statements without supporting evidence.

There's nothing wrong with being aggressive when the evidence is on your side, but when there is no evidence that aggression just makes you look like an idiot.

The supporting evidence wasn't released to the public yet, but it was obvious what happened. I used pretty sound logic to found my assumptions about that car crash, and the logic was sound enough that I felt 99.9% certain that my assumptions would be proven correct by the coroner's office. I've also worked with addicts for nearly 20 years. That's long enough to instinctively spot one, and in this case my instincts + logic were correct. I'm not going to apologize for having some expertise in this field. If you have a substance abuse problem there's only 3 options; get clean, go to jail, or die. In the case of Dunn he chose not to get clean, he would have gone to jail for vehicular homicide if he survived the crash, but he eventually chose to die. Dunn chose to die, it was his decision, and now his friends and family have to live with it.

Bam doesn't deserve any sympathy either because all he did over the past 5 years was enable his friend to kill himself. Bam and Dunn's friends knew he was going to kill himself and/or other people behind the wheel of a car and they did nothing about it except profit of Dunn's psychological issues. The youtube video says it all.

http://youtu.be/nNle4SFyYYU

Edit: Nevermind, not going to get banned. So obviously, since I'm going to edit my posts to avoid being banned, I'm certainly not going to leave behind a personal attack on another user; that would be counterproductive!
<right? --Janthkin>

schadenfreude wrote:Statistically speaking if you were to take a large sample of men in their mid 30's who tweet themselves drinking beers where pictures show they visibly look gakfaced to an experienced eye, and then crash their car at 130+MPH into a tree a half hour after closing time what % of those people would end up with a BAC >.08?

You're not speaking in terms of statistics, you're merely using that terminology to dress up what is basically your gut reaction, which is exactly what I'm criticizing you for proceeding on. If you were actually proceeding on statistic, you would have statistics to back up that particular assertion, which would entail data collected regarding multiple instances of the specific situation you're describing, data that I very much doubt exists.

schadenfreude wrote:
Those are enough facts to piece together some odds with logic + facts, so gives us some odds. I'm going with 999 times out of 1000 the guy has a BAC>.08

No, that isn't enough data to develop a probability of correlation. Statistics work by taking an empirical look at multiple instances of a given set of common events, not by looking at the details of one particular event.

Again, you're just dressing up your gut feeling in scientific terminology in order to justify your earlier comments. You made a judgment based on insufficient information, and were lucky that it agreed with the relevant facts.

schadenfreude wrote:
Alcohol abuse includes both physical addiction to alcohol and the inability to stop drinking despite alcohol having a negative impact on your life. If a man routinely beats his wife, beats his children, and/or drives drunk when intoxicated, acts like a civilized human being when sober, but can't stop drinking the man is an alcohol addict that is not physically addicted to alcohol. Dunn was on a long documented spiral of destruction.

Aside from his death, I haven't seen any evidence that substance use had any negative impact on Dunn's life. Additionally, there is a significant difference between a legitimate addict, an alcoholic, and a person who abuses alcohol; even in the clinical typology.

I also know that any decent substance abuse counselor, or any sort of counselor for that matter, understands that diagnosing someone without first hand contact is foolish at best.