bbe38f1e   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: jollyroger@pobox.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote:   
   > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 14:27:05 +0000, chris wrote:   
   >   
   >> Even if the accident rate did go up it wouldn't be proof that cellphone   
   >> use causes accidents. It only shows that there is a *correlation*   
   >> between the two. As we all know correlation does not imply causation.   
   >   
   > You guys *always* say that   
      
   It's absolutely true that correlation is not causation. That's a widely   
   accepted FACT.   
      
   > as if that's an excuse for your total   
   > lack of data whatsoever supporting your arguments.   
      
   Another lie. Studies aren't absent of fact. And saying they are over and   
   over doesn't magically make it true. The studies speak for themselves and   
   hold lots of very relevant data. You just want to discount and ignore this   
   data since it doesn't fit your narrative.   
      
   > My argument is replete with data supporting the overall accident rate   
   > numbers.   
      
   Again, accident rates are controlled by many factors unrelated to cell   
   phone use. Your logic is fatally flawed.   
      
   --   
   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)