XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: jollyroger@pobox.com   
      
   On 2015-12-10, Chris  wrote:   
   > "Paul M. Cook"  Wrote in message:   
   >> On Thu, 10 Dec 2015 15:05:22 +0000, chris wrote:   
   >   
   >> Most people are pretty stupid compared to the people you and I   
   >> hang around with daily.   
   >   
   > You have no idea who I around with, so please stop pretending you do.   
      
   Come on, Chris. That's no way to converse while drinking your tea in   
   front of the fireplace with your new "friend". ; )   
      
   >>> No, no! That's not how science works. That's just positive selection   
   >>> bias. You're finding data that fits your bias. That is what we in the   
   >>> trade call 'bad' science.   
   >>   
   >> This is not true Chris,   
   >   
   > You're slipping into a world of fantasy   
      
   I think you'll find that he actually lives there, 24/7.   
      
   >> I really do intuit that cellphones *should* cause more accidents.   
   >> Yet, *nobody* can find those higher accident rates.   
   >> That's because they don't exist.   
   >>   
   >> How is that a "positive" bias?   
   >   
   > It's your choice of data over any other to support your   
   >  'intuition' that is positive bias.   
   >   
   > You really don't understand do you?   
      
   He really doesn't, which makes his claims of superior intelligence all   
   the more absurd to those who know better.   
      
   >> Chris. How did you manage to *miss* entirely what the data says?   
   >   
   > I'm not the one looking at it. You're the one missing the point   
   >  that just because you can't see a correlation doesn't mean that   
   >  cellphone use doesn't cause accidents.   
   >   
   >> Nobody can find any increase in the accident rate.   
   >> Period.   
   >   
   > Even they did, it wouldn't prove anything. Why can't you get that?   
   >  It is always going to be just a correlation.   
      
   He doesn't understand the meaning of the word.   
      
   >>> There is no '[sic]'. The studies, within their remits, do prove it. You   
   >>> agree with them in point 1. above. You're contradicting yourself.   
   >>   
   >> The studies, as we all know, are manufactured experiments.   
   >   
   > Aka a 'controlled' expt.   
      
   Factual relevant data - something he apparently avoids at all costs.   
      
   --   
   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)