c9f1cd83   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: jollyroger@pobox.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote:   
   > On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 11:02:12 -0500, Paul M. Cook wrote:   
   >   
   >> The onus isn't on me to explain that cellphone use has absolutely   
   >> no effect on that fact, since *nothing* is changing in the accident   
   >> rate, which has been kept for the past 50 years and which is   
   >> reliable data.   
   >>   
   >> The onus is on those who "claim" that cellphones are dangerous to   
   >> use in vehicles to prove that they really have an effect in the   
   >> real world.   
   >   
   > I should point out that the *trend* in the accident rate is what   
   > is not changing. The trend is ever downward, due to a huge variety   
   > of long-standing factors such as increased stability control and   
   > roadway lighting and signage, etc.   
   >   
   > The onus isn't on those who claim that cellphone use actually has   
   > *any* effect whatsoever on either that trend or on the accident   
   > rate itself, as there is no effect that anyone can find.   
      
   Your fixation on accident rate is clear. And your assertion that accident   
   rates would rise if cell phone use were a factor is illogical. Yet you   
   continue to cling to accident rates because it's all you've got.   
      
   > So, the cellphone-law proponents   
      
   Nobody here is pushing laws. We are simply talking about how cell phone use   
   affects drivers.   
      
   > have to ignore basic facts in   
   > order to make their argument (they have to delude themselves).   
      
   An accurate description of you since you discard studies that disagree with   
   your faulty conclusion that accident rates would rise if cell phone use   
   were a factor.   
      
   > That's why they "appear" stupid to me.   
      
   Look in the mirror some time.   
      
   > Maybe they just can't handle facts?   
      
   Look in the mirror some time.   
      
   > Or maybe they have an emotional attachment to the idea?   
      
   Look in the mirror some time.   
      
   > Or maybe they are highly intuitive judgmental types who don't need   
   > data to support their arguments?   
      
   Look in the mirror some time.   
      
   > Or, maybe, just maybe, they "are" stupid.   
   > I don't know which it is because they all say the same thing.   
      
   You aren't listening if that's what you believe. Not surprised.   
      
   --   
   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)