a0d0c741   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Wed, 09 Dec 2015 18:16:44 +0000, Chris wrote:   
      
   > Your argument is full of assumptions placed upon data. There's   
   >  nothing wrong with the data, just your interpretation of   
   >  it.   
      
   You're stating what's possible; not what's believable.   
      
   I agree that there is nothing wrong with the accident rate data   
   as reported for decades for every state in the nation.   
      
   I also agree that other data would show an astoundingly meteoric   
   rise in cellphone ownership during a particular period in time   
   (most likely having leveled off by now in the USA).   
      
   What nobody can find is any effect on the overall accident rate   
   from that meteoric rise in cellphone ownership.   
      
   Because it's not there.   
      
   You say the tremendous rise and then leveling off of accidents   
   supposedly due to cellphone-distracted drivers *can" be *hidden*   
   in the data - but I counter that's the case only if a combination   
   of other factors *exactly* cancels out both the timing and effect   
   of the cellphone use.   
      
   That's possible - but not believable.   
   Yours would be an extraordinary claim.   
      
   Extraordinary claims require extraordinary data.   
      
   And, nobody has shown any data, let alone extraordinary data - that   
   even comes close to supporting that extraordinary claim.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)