🚀 go-pugleaf

On Thu, 02 Jul 1998 06:56:10 -0500, Hackman
<"hacker(nospam)"@jump.nospam.net> wrote:

>Scott Weiser wrote:

>> I'll challenge you instead to prove that "the medical community"
>> doesn't accept HGN as a valid screen for alcohol, since you made the
>> statement.
>> 
>
>ummm..in case you haven't been keeping up, the article your responding
>to just did.....

I haven't seen anything but baseless assertions on your part.

>
>
>> >
>> >>   HGN is a diagnostic tool in medicine for several ailments,
>> >> intoxication being one of them, but not everyone uses it or sees it's
>> >> value.
>> >
>> >well, at least not the medical industry.....
>> 
>> And there are practitioners in the "medical industry" who believe that
>> spots on your iris will tell them if you have a disease.
>> 
>
>yes...but if a cop told me that, or a doctor, I would still tend to
>beleive the doctor...not the cop...don't you get it ?  You guys are not
>god no matter hwat you may think...so why not just fget out of the
>medical field where you do not belong.

The question is not what you believe or disbelieve, it's what the
*courts* believe.  Around here, they find HGN to be credible evidence
towards probable cause to require a chemical test.

>
>
>> >
>> >
>> >>   And the fact that it is not admissible in some states is
>> >> offset by the fact that it *is* admissible in others.
>> >
>> >thats conforting....
>> 
>> It should be, it's a very reliable indicator, and since the object is
>> to get drunks off the road, you should support any lawful process
>> which allows that to happen and prevent drunks from slipping through
>> the cracks.
>> 
>
>then if what you say were true it would NOT be conforting untill it was
>US wide..

Indeed, but that's politics for you, and I'll take whatever I can get.

>(kinda slow today aren't we ?)

Not really.

>
>
>> >
>> >>  Many times
>> >> it's a political issue, not a factual issue, that keeps HGN out of
>> >> court through laws created by the legislature, not by court rulings
>> >> based on credible evidence.
>> >>
>> >
>> >yet I would reverse that statement...after all if the medical industry
>> >says it;s not valid, why would I then beleive a politician over a
>> >research doctor ?
>> 
>> Care to prove that the "medical industry" says it's not valid?
>> 
>
>
>duhhh....

I didn't think you could.

>
>
>> >
>> >yet your statement above would have me beleive the politician and not
>> >the doctor...strange....
>> 
>> No, I just deny your assertion.
>> 
>
>which I have already posted evidence from the medical community....

Where?  I don't see any evidence.
 
>> Well, HGN *has* been approved in many jurisdictions, so, quod erat
>> demonstrandum.
>> 
>
>many ?  care to prove that one ?

Pick any of the many jurisdictions in Colorado.

Regards,

Scott Weiser

******
"I love the Internet, I no longer have to depend upon my
friends, family and co-workers, I can annoy people WORLDWIDE!"
******
http://www.dimensional.com/~weiser/

Copyright 1998 by Scott Weiser

Under the UCC, by the act of transmitting any commercial 
e-mail advertisment to this address, you are expressly 
contracting with me in my professional capacity for a 
consultation on the ad's effectiveness and you expressly 
agree to pay to me the sum of $250.00 for each such 
consultation within 10 days of my report to the original 
sending address.  You further expressly agree that all 
actions for recovery of fees owed shall be subject solely 
to the laws of the State of Colorado, which shall have 
sole jurisdiction.