|
|
#1 (permalink) |
|
Giggling stool
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 16
vodkaramel is an unknown character at this point
![]() |
Hi there !
![]() Here is an article frome the NY Times, November 4, 2007 which reads : Recently, a United States District Court judge in Tennessee ruled that the state had, in fact, violated the Eighth Amendment by disregarding the “substantial risk” that the three-drug cocktail would cause “unnecessary pain.” Those risks could have been addressed by additional safeguards, the judge said, or by switching to a straight no-chaser consisting of an overdose of a single barbiturate, the method recommended by a state study commission. I cannot grasp the full meaning of the text in bold letters, can anyone give my a hint ?! ^^ Thx Full article here Last edited by vodkaramel; 01-15-2008 at 04:48 PM. |
| (Offline) |
|
|
|
#2 (permalink) |
|
flying dancer
|
Hi there
I did not went through the whole article, however I guess it was about death penalty that causes pain to people being killed. The Court said that it could have been avoided thanks to a "straight no-chaser" method. In the saying "Straight no chaser", straight stands for something pure and chaser for a second product that should round out the first one. "no-chaser" is when you don't need the second product. I guess the saying first refers to drinking : in pub you can ask a straight whiskey and a chaser (Guinness or whatever with less alcohol) to help thereafter. A straight no-chaser whiskey would be no ice no water whiskey and no chaser after it ![]() I don't know if I have been very clear. If not, do not hesitate to ask a second explanation ![]() |
| (Offline) |
|
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
|
Translation help (English) : The international discussion forum : NY Times excerpt
|