6999e746   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: jollyroger@pobox.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote:   
   > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 01:37:55 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:   
   >   
   >> Irrelevant to the current discussion, and also none of your business.   
   >   
   > It's relevant because   
      
   It's irrelevant because my IQ has absolutely no bearing on the topic at   
   hand. You're trolling as usual.   
      
   > you can't refute the fact that the overall accident   
   > rate in the US has NOT shown the slightest upward blip during the period   
   > of meteoric rise of cellphone ownership.   
      
   I don't have to refute it fit you to be wrong. The fact is accident rate is   
   affected by many more factors than just cell phone use, so there is no   
   direct correlation between the two, as you continue to assert.   
      
   > So, either you are wholly unable to comprehend that basic fact,   
      
   I comprehend it better than you apparently.   
      
   > you're just ignoring that basic fact because it's not convenient.   
      
   Wrong. I'm dismissing it as inconsequential since you haven't shown a   
   direct correlation between cell phone use and accident rates.   
      
   > Neither is the hallmark of intelligence.   
      
   You have shown time and again that you are not a good judge of   
   intelligence.   
      
   --   
   E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.   
   I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.   
      
   JR   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)