79cf55f7   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote   
   > Chris wrote   
      
   >> How big so you predict the numbers to be? Why?   
      
   > Huge.   
      
   > Astoundingly huge.   
      
   > Because if cellphones are as dangerous as driving drunk   
   > would be, then having almost every driver on the road,   
   > essentially, driving drunk, would cause an immense   
   > catastrophically huge amount of accidents that the   
   > accident statistics would overwhelmingly show the effect.   
      
   Not if most of them aren't actually stupid   
   enough to use the phone while driving.   
      
   > That there is zero effect   
      
   You don’t know that.   
      
   Same with the kids being bratty while you are driving.   
      
   > is the most telling thing of all.   
      
   Nope.   
      
   > I realize you want to wish away this stupendously meteoric rise   
   > in cellphone use as something that is somehow (magically?)   
   > hidden in the noise level of the overall accident-rate statistics.   
      
   > That you continue to propose such a preposterous   
   > theory shows that you are manufacturing obstacles   
   > to what is, in essence, a simple argument.   
      
   You're too stupid to realise that it is impossible to separate   
   out the various causes of accidents and that it isn't even   
   possible to do that with drink driving which even someone   
   as stupid as you must realise has a significant effect on   
   your driving ability when you are pissed enough.   
      
   > You don't understand Occams Razer in the least, as the only   
   > rebuttal you can foster to the clear argument that there are   
   > no increase in accident rates that *anyone* can find, is that   
   > you say the stupendously huge increase predicted by the   
   > "drunk driving" model is somehow, hidden in the details.   
      
   Not in the details, hidden by the dramatic improvement   
   in the design of cars and the roads which has seen the   
   fatality rate drop to below what it was in the 50s now,   
   even tho even you must have noticed the dramatic   
   increase in the amount of traffic on the roads now.   
      
   > That's possible; but patently preposterous.   
      
   Nope.   
      
   > That you keep *repeating* that preposterous   
   > claim is why I will stop responding to your claims.   
      
   Your problem. You always pull that stunt when you   
   have got done like a fucking dinner, as you always are.   
      
   > Both you are Jolly Roger are welcome   
   > to the last word, as you'll have it anyway.   
      
   Ditto.   
      
   > But, my last word is that   
      
   That turned out to be a bared faced lie, again.   
      
   > the way you try to explain away the lack of any   
   > increase in accidents is possible (I will  grant you   
   > that), but patently so preposterous as to be totally   
   > unbelievable (especially as you give no reasons for   
   > the data to be hidden - you just say it 'could' be).   
      
   It is clearly obscured by the dramatic improvement   
   in the design of cars and the roads which has seen the   
   fatality rate drop to below what it was in the 50s now,   
   even tho even you must have noticed the dramatic   
   increase in the amount of traffic on the roads now.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)