56da7e1a   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   Paul M. Cook  wrote   
   > chris wrote   
      
   >> Why don't you reply to my points directly?   
      
   > Chris,   
      
   > Let's be blunt.   
      
   > Your argument is preposterous that reason the overall accident   
   > rates don't show any effect whatsoever from cellphone use is   
   > due to (magically perfect) "hidden" factors.   
      
   > If you truly believe the studies that *prove* [sic] that cellphone use   
   > while driving is as dangerous as driving drunk would be, and if you   
   > have the most basic inkling of how many people own cellphones   
   > in the United States, then what you're intimating is preposterous.   
      
   It isn't own that matters, its USING THE CELLPHONE WHEN DRIVING.   
      
   > You are, in effect, saying that everyone on the road who owns a   
   > cellphone who is using that cellphone while driving is driving   
   > as unsafely as a drunk driver would.   
      
   > If that were even remotely true, the numbers of accidents that   
   > would be happening would be catastrophically astoundingly huge.   
      
   Not when most aren't stupid enough to use their cellphone when driving.   
      
   > That the accident rate shows nothing of the sort, you then   
   > try to explain away as being "hidden" in the numbers.   
      
   > Your argument is therefore patently preposterous,   
      
   Nope.   
      
   > and, as a result, is far beyond reasonable belief.   
      
   > I grant you that your argument "can" happen, but the chances   
   > of it happening, especially in light of the fact that you can't think   
   > of a single factor that would hide such stupendous numbers,   
   > proves beyond a doubt that you're simply grasping at straws.   
      
   Like hell he is.   
      
   > You are beyond hope, and, since you wish to have the   
   > last word, I will grant you your wish. But, I do hope that   
   > you realize what it is that you're saying, because my   
   > argument is as plain as Occams Razor,   
      
   It has nothing to do with Occams Razor.   
      
   > while yours requires a stupendously huge suspension   
   > preposterously sized suspension of disbelief in order   
   > to carry any weight.   
      
   Bullshit.   
      
   And have fun explaining why the authoritys have   
   banned the use of cellphones when driving.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)