Hiring bartenders liability

[washingtonstate]

If I hire a bartender for a party, what is my liability as a party planner? Is there a difference if it is my party? What if the bartender allows someone to leave my party if they might be drunk and get into a drunk driving accident or get a DUI or DWI summons?

 

[mightymoose]

If it is a private function the responsibility is with the individual unless minors are being served.
A bartender at a business, like a clerk at a store, can be held responsible for serving someone who is already intoxicated.
To be safe, be responsible and cut your guests off if they get too trashed.

 

[Unregistered]

Regarding the stepwise metohd of reconstruction, :First off, after a 7 years you'd think that he [McIntyre] would be aware that the reconstructions are done in a step-wise fashion i.e. you use as much information as is available as far back as you can. Back to 1500 you use everything that goes back that far, back to 1400 a little less etc. So a proper no-dendro/no-Tijl reconstruction will not just be made with what is available in 1000AD.Now :Here’s where I think the difference lies. Mann’s graphics all show the results of spliced reconstructions rather than what you get with proxies going back to AD1000. The provenance of the network used in Mann’s November 2009 revision of a figure in his SI isn’t described as clearly as it might be. My interpretation of the figure is that the network includes 71 Luterbacher gridded European series which use instrumental temperature data. [Emphasis added]In this , McIntyre first refuses to explain what he meant, while snidely implying that his exposition is much clearer than Mann's original article:scientist Posted Jul 30, 2010 at 8:00 PM * Splicing or mixing?** the whole thing is a reconstruction, no? What do you mean by the term in plural? Do you mean proxies? Some sort of intermediate results (by grid square)?Really hard for me to follow your explanation and I’ve followed this thing for a while. It sounds like you’re talking to yourself, not explaining a concept to the readers.Steve: If you find my explanations unhelpful, you can always consult the original article. Then under further prodding, McIntyre makes clear that he does understand the stepwise reconstruction metohd (and continues to gratuitously insult the questioner, while indulging in self-puffery):scientist Posted Jul 30, 2010 at 10:03 PM A. Someone else’s writing does not excuse yours.B. Editorial demands make papers easier to read than stream of consciousness, same-day-published blog posts.C. Clear writing is clear thinking. In science, engineering, business, military, etc.D. You don’t even have a citation for the “original articleâ€.Steve: there is a link to Mann’s website. Mann does stepwise reconstructions. “Splicing†of reconstructions means splicing of the stepwise reconstructions. In any given blog post, I’m afraid that I don’t necessarily re-define terms and, to that extent, some familiarity with the metohds is often presumed on the part of readers. I try to write clearly, but unfortunately I don’t have time to recap things in each blog post. There are other excellent climate blogs if you want articles on a more popular level. Or other posts at this blog may interest you.So did McIntyre really think that the no dendro figure was unclear? Or was this just an excuse to show a reconstruction that is less of a hockey stick , even though it in no way corresponded to Mann's metohdology?Let's see how unclear (revised or otherwise) was. The legend clearly shows that the various sub-networks are compared to the original (i.e. full stepwise ) CPS reconstruction : original NH CPSNH CPS minus 7NH CPS w/o tree ringsNH CPS minus 7 w/o tree ringsInstrumental RecordSo there's no reason to think any of these networks used anything other than the original stepwise reconstruction metohd, nor that they would exclude any other proxies than those explicitly stated.Not only that, but on (referred to by McIntyre) we even find:The previously posted version of the figure had an error due to incorrect application of the procedure described in the paper for updating the network in each century increment. In the newly corrected figure, we have added the result for NH CPS without both tree-rings *and* the 7 potential problem series. [Emphasis added]And on top of all that, descends from 1000 while Mann's rises, so it doesn't even match in the 1000-1100 step!Incompetence, dishonesty, or both? You decide.

 

[Unregistered]

Cool! That's a clever way of loonikg at it!

 

[Unregistered]

Now I'm like, well duh! Truly thaknful for your help.