In news
wrote:
Are you kidding?
Changing the subject line since this is completely off topic.
I only speak facts.
The accidents simply do not exist.
You can dance all you want around the elephant in the room.
But the accidents simply do not exist.
AT&T even made a movie with Werner Herzog, about
the large number of people killed as a result of texting.
What I said was clear.
You don't seem to have comprehended what I said.
I said, very clearly, that the accident rate in each of the 50 states and
in the combined numbers, which is good data - has not shown ANY effect by
the utterly stupendous huge and sudden skyrocketing rates of cellphone
ownership (and we can assume use while driving).
This is a fact you can dance around all you want.
But that doesn't change that it's a fact.
(I suspect they were probably trying to get the attention
away from cellphone talking while driving.)
They're trying to sell advertising.
I've been in 2 accidents over the last 15 years or so.
I've never had an accident in my life, and I've driven about a million
miles. That's simply a "story". Anecdotal evidence is not science.
Anyone who tries to prove a fact by telling a story is not a logical adult.
5 reasons why anecdotes are totally worthless
https://thelogicofscience.com/2016/0...lly-worthless/
How Anecdotal Evidence Can Undermine Scientific Results
https://www.scientificamerican.com/a...tific-results/
Why Anecdotal Evidence is Unreliable
http://blog.minitab.com/blog/adventu...-is-unreliable
Do Anecdotes Have A Place In Science?
https://skeptoid.com/blog/2014/09/08...ce-in-science/
Anecdotal vs. Scientific Evidence
http://www.personal.psu.edu/pel2/blo...ic-eviden.html
To wit:
Anecdotes make great stories for telling around a campfire; but anecdotal
evidence is not science.
One was caused by a man getting directions from a
friend while driving. The other was probably due to
cellphone use. (I was parked. Someone just plowed
into my truck on a quiet street.)
Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.
Anyone who needs to resort to anecdotal evidence to 'prove' a point, has no
business in a factual discussion where truth is what matters.
Just yesterday there was this:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...98b_story.html
An FBI agent, reaching for his phone, went off
the road. A series of events ended up with him and
a good samaritan dead.
Anecdotal evidence makes for great stories around a campfire.
But while it's a great story, it's just not science.
Science is the fact that nobody on this planet has ever been able to find
ANY first-order relationship whatsoever between skyrocketing cellphone
ownership rates (and presumed use while driving) and actual accident rates.
You can dance around fact all you want; but you can't change that it's a
fact.
In my experience, most accidents are caused by
people trying to talk or text while driving. I deal with
them daily.
You're an intuitive thinker, which means, basically, you're not logical,
since it's clear to anyone logical what the facts are.
Nothing wrong with being intuitive - many people are - but it means they're
wrong a LOT of the time simply because they don't check facts.
The facts are clear. Nobody on this planet can find the accidents in the
overall accident rate that people intuit are due to cellphone use while
driving.
You don't think they've looked?
The simple fact is that they don't exist.
I never once said accidents don't exist. They exist like they've always
existed since the statistics were compiled, and the accident rate has been
steadily dropping, year over year over year over year over year over year.
There is ZERO influence of cellphone ownership rates on accident rates.
Zero.
That's a fact you can dance around all you want to.
But it doesn't change the fact.
| Warning: OFF TOPIC!
Sorry, but this is not your newsgroup.
That's a childish thing for you to say.
First off, what I said was it was "off topic".
That's a fact.
You don't seem to like facts.
But the fact you don't like facts doesn't make them not facts.
You don't
get to guide the conversation.
Again. I said it was off topic.
That's a fact.
You seem to be acting like a child because you don't like that fact.
But it doesn't change the fact of what I say is always fact.
The fact that you
started the thread doesn't make it yours.
Again, you're acting like a child acts.
I said it was off topic.
And it is.
This is a Windows newsgroup - and this topic of cellphone related accidents
is completely off topic.
You seem to super easily forget facts.
But the fact you don't comprehend this fact doesn't make it not a fact.
It's a public discussion.
That's the first fact in this thread you got right.
Nobody logical ever disagrees with facts.
That's what is so great about facts.
Everyone agrees on facts who is an adult who can comprehend facts.
And while this particular
thread has been informative and interesting to me,
you started it with ulterior motives, to criticize
Win10 while pretending to be neutral.
You fabricated that claim and it's patently false.
How can I prove it's patently false?
Probably I can't prove it - but that's only because it's a baseless claim.
That you got only a single fact correct in this entire post (which was the
obvious fact that this is a public discussion), and the fact that you got
EVERY other fact wrong in this post, tells me that you are not a logical
thinker which is proven in *all* your statements (save one).
I only speak facts.