dee41e8e   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: pmcook@gte.net   
      
   On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 03:44:44 +0000, Jolly Roger wrote:   
      
   > Your desperately clinging to accident rates despite the fact that accident   
   > rates are determined by many factors unrelated to cell phone use died t go   
   > unnoticed. Your argument is a failure.   
      
   I actually am confused because you seem to be smart but you say what   
   appears to be really not-smart things such as what you just said.   
      
   1. Do you realize that US accident rates are reliable figures?   
      Yes   No   (circle one)   
      
   2. Do you realize that cellphone ownership is astoundingly large?   
      Yes   No   (circle one)   
      
   3. Do you realize the claims made in the so-called studies of the dangers?   
      Yes   No   (circle one)   
      
   4. Do you realize that if you believe those studies, and if you realize   
      how many phones are in US cars today (virtually every car), that   
      the accident rate *must* go up *appreciably* such that the accidents   
      predicted by the claims made in #2 and #3 above *must* very strongly   
      affect the US Census Bureau's accident rate charts?   
      Yes   No   (circle one)   
      
   If you haven't circled "yes" in each of those 4 questions, then   
   that's where you need to seriously consider your logical reasoning   
   process.   
      
   There is absolutely no way that the accidents can be *hidden*   
   as cleverly as you intimate because they would be so stupendous   
   that they couldn't possibly be hidden.   
      
   That you can't even slightly comprehend that statement, is the   
   reason I must question either your motive or your IQ.   
      
   This not an insult because I think you actually do comprehend   
   what I'm saying; you just have a motive which is to troll, and,   
   you've proven that (in spades).   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)