bbe38f1e   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: ithinkiam@gmail.com   
      
   "Paul M. Cook"  Wrote in message:   
   > 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 as if that's an excuse for your total   
   > lack of data whatsoever supporting your arguments.   
      
   No. I'm just pointing out that the data you're talking about   
    doesn't have the ability to support our refute your   
    hypothesis.   
      
      
   > My argument is replete with data supporting the overall accident rate   
   > numbers.   
      
   Your argument is full of assumptions placed upon data. There's   
    nothing wrong with the data, just your interpretation of   
    it.   
      
   > Yours has zero data supporting the overall accident rate numbers.   
      
   What's my argument, exactly? I didn't make an argument.   
      
   > So, you say "correlation does not imply causation", which, you think,   
   > in your mind, refutes your absolute and utter lack of any overall   
   > accident rate data.   
      
   I don't have any data because I don't have an argument. Just   
    pointing out flaws in yours.   
      
   > I understand that the overall accident rate is good data but that it   
   > is comprised of many elements, one of which is cellphone usage.   
   >   
   > However, *you* don't seem to understand that the numbers are astoundingly   
   > huge for both accidents and for cellphone ownership.   
      
   The numbers are also huge for the numbers of stars in the sky.   
    Comparing two huge numbers doesn't make the comparison any more   
    valid. It will always be nothing more than a correlation.   
      
   > That you can't even find a blip that supports your argument is   
   > why you fall back to saying that the data is bad.   
      
   I'm not trying to look for one. You are. The data are fine, it's   
    your interpretation that's flawed.   
      
   > The data is the most reliable data on accident rates in the world.   
   > You just don't like what it says.   
      
   Again, I couldn't care less about the data. Whether they are good   
    or bad is not relevant when the interpretation is   
    flawed.   
      
      
   ----Android NewsGroup Reader----   
   http://usenet.sinaapp.com/   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)