On Mon, 30 Mar 2009 21:38:38 +0200, andrel wrote:

> On 30-3-2009 17:17, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Sun, 29 Mar 2009 22:55:05 +0200, andrel wrote:
>> 
>>> To which my predictable response would be that they can not judge
>>> either. But that is so predictable that I won't do it. ;)
>> 
>> Well, if you did, I would probably be inclined to point out that not
>> all of the parties present may have been drinking. :-)
> 
> And if you would, I would have said that that is immaterial because
> whether they would have been drinking or not, they could still not
> really see if your reaction time to something unexpected was 0.5 or 1.0
> or 1.5 seconds. But of course there is no need, as you did not react to
> what I did not say.

Ah, but I would've pointed out then that it is material, because the 
party organizer is being responsible for their partygoers.  It's not a 
reaction time measurement, yes, but there are points where someone's 
falling-down-drunk that it's obvious they shouldn't be driving even if 
they think so.

But of course I'm not saying that, because I have nothing to respond 
to. ;-)

Jim

Post a reply to this message