4bbeb4a2   
   XPost: misc.phone.mobile.iphone, comp.mobile.android   
   From: rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com   
      
   "Paul M. Cook"  wrote in message   
   news:4a83c$566e0e4e$58b0f472$15947@nntpswitch.blueworldhosting.com...   
   > On Mon, 14 Dec 2015 08:09:28 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:   
   >   
   >>> The onus isn't on "me" to determine if it's dangerous.   
   >>   
   >> You were the one who originally proclaimed that cellphone   
   >> use while driving can not be seen in the accident rate.   
   >   
   > That's correct.   
   >   
   > I'm saying the accident rate has nothing to do with cellphones   
      
   And you have no basis for that claim.   
      
   > just like it has nothing to do with how many people wear   
   > red socks.   
   >   
   > And, the data shows that.   
      
   There is no data to show anything with cellphone use while driving.   
      
   > The people who need to produce the data you're looking for   
   > are those who claim that cellphones have *any* effect on the   
   > accident rate.   
   >   
   > Not me. I already said, it's clear that they have no effect   
   > whatsoever on the accident rate   
      
   Another lie. You have no data on which to base that claim.   
      
   (that's as obvious as me saying   
   > that the color of your hair has nothing to do with the accident   
   > rate).   
   >   
   > You don't expect me to produce data showing that the color of   
   > your hair has no effect on the accident rate, do you?   
   >   
   > It's the people who claim *otherwise* who need to show their   
   > data (which they can't!).   
   >   
   > So, just like the onus to provide proof that anyone claiming   
   > that the color of your hair has something to do with the accident   
   > rate, those who claim that cellphones have something to do   
   > with the accident rate are the ones you need to ask for   
   > this data from.   
   >   
   > Not me. There is *no* data that will prove that cellphones   
   > have *any* effect on the accident rate.   
      
   That's a lie with accidents where the time of the   
   accident is known from a dashcam, GPS, break in   
   cellphone use, call to 911 etc etc etc and the cellphone   
   records.   
      
   > So, you can't ask me to supply proof since there is no proof   
   > that cellphones have *any* effect on the accident rate.   
      
   That's a lie with accidents where the time of the   
   accident is known from a dashcam, GPS, break in   
   cellphone use, call to 911 etc etc etc and the cellphone   
   records.   
      
   > Those who say otherwise are the ones who need to supply proof   
   > (and they can't, simply because that proof does not exist).   
      
   Another bare faced lie.   
      
   YOU made the original claim.   
      
   YOU get to substantiate that claim.   
      
   THAT’S how it works.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)