dee41e8e   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: jollyroger@pobox.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote:   
   > 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   
      
   Yes, you are.   
      
   > if you realize   
   >    how many phones are in US cars today (virtually every car), that   
   >    the accident rate *must* go up   
      
   No. AGAIN, you cannot claim that cell phone use alone must cause an   
   increase in accident rates since other factors unrelated to cell phone use   
   that may cause a decrease in accident rates! Your assertion is fatally   
   flawed! You are being incredibly dense! How can it be that you STILL cling   
   to this hopelessly flawed logic?!   
      
   > 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.   
      
   You are the one who is using flawed logic. And I'm tiring of repeating   
   myself, as you have so far shown an inability or unwillingness to grasp the   
   basic concept of correlation versus causation.   
      
   > 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.   
      
   More flawed logic based on faulty assumptions. Now you seem to be actually   
   claiming that cell phone use is a greater factor than ALL other factors   
   COMBINED that determine accident rates! Do you have any idea how   
   preposterous that is? I doubt you have even tried to quantify all other   
   factors before carelessly ignoring them as statistically irrelevant.   
      
   > That you can't even slightly comprehend that statement, is the   
   > reason I must question either your motive or your IQ.   
      
   More insults. Not surprised you are stopping this low yet again.   
      
   > 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).   
      
   That's an accurate description of you. You are projecting, as you so often   
   do.   
      
   --   
   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)